Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RIOTS, CHITTAGONG.

Major GRAHAM POLE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what was the loss to life and property in the riots which occurred at Chittagong, in the first week of September; what was the size of the police and armed and other protective forces in the town at the time; and whether he will inform the House of the special action which was taken by the local authorities to stop the development of the riots, and of what steps have been taken to fix the responsibility for the outbreak and spread of the disturbance?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The reports so far received by me do not indicate that there was any loss of life in the disturbances which followed the murder of Inspector Ashanullah. An official estimate of the damage to property has been called for but has not yet been supplied to me. I am unable to state the strength of the civil police but in addition to these the local authorities had at their disposal a, detachment of 200 Assam Rifles and a number of European special constables. As regards the last part of the question a Curfew Order was imposed and an order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code was issued prohibiting the carrying of lathis or other weapons. In addition a peace committee of leading Hindus and Muhammadans was formed. The Commissioner of the Chittagong Division has been appointed by the Government of Bengal to hold an inquiry of which I am circulating the terms of reference. The Inspector-General of Police will be associated with the Commissioner whenever necessary.

Following are the terms of reference:
To report on all events subsequent to the murder of Inspector Ashanullah and mare especially on:

(a) the looting and other damage done to private property in Chittagong and elsewhere, and
(b) the conduct of the police and other Government servants in connection with the events in Chittagong and the Mofussil."

IMPORT DUTIES (COTTON).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 2.
asked the Secretary of State fur India, whether he can make any statement to the House regarding the proposals of the Government of India to increase the existing import duties upon British goods entering India, with special reference to the imports of Lancashire cotton goods?

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he made any and, if so, what representation to the Indian Government on the recent Measure for the increase of the Indian tariff?

Sir S. HOARE: His Majesty's Government were satisfied that an increase in the revenues of India, both direct and indirect, and falling upon all classes of the community, was essential for the balancing of the Indian Budget. As part of the increase of indirect taxation, it has been necessary to impose an all-round surcharge of 25 per cent. on all existing import duties. In consequence, the duty on cotton piece goods of British manufacture will now be 25 per cent., and on piece goods of foreign manufacture 31¼ per cent., with a minimum duty in both cases of 4⅜ annas per pound on plain grey goods. Hon. Members will observe that the difference between the ordinary rates on British and non-British cotton piece goods is now 6¼ per cent. as against 5 per cent. prior to the emergency Budget. Other factors which mitigate the effect of the increases upon British trade are that a Customs duty of 10 per cent. has been imposed on imports of machinery and of half an anna per pound on raw cotton, hitherto admitted free of duty. It is further the case that under present exchange conditions British exporters will be more favourably placed in trading with India than exporters in countries such as Japan, which adhere to the Gold Standard. I am hopeful that these factors will go some way to compensate British exporters for the effect of the increased duties. In the course of the discussions which preceded the introduction of the emergency Budget, His Majesty's Government did everything in
their power consistently with the Fiscal Autonomy Convention, to lighten the burden falling upon British trade as a result of the increased taxation, and they will continue to watch the situation in a sympathetic spirit.

Mr. MARLEY: Would the Government cause inquiry to be made into the excessive military expenditure in India, which amounts to 45 per cent. of the total Budget?

Sir S. HOARE: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

ARMY (INDIANISATION).

Major POLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give information showing how many of the vacancies at Sandhurst filled by competition have, since the inception of the scheme of Indianisation of the Indian Army, been filled by candidates belonging to the enlisted classes?

Sir S. HOARE.: The only details available at the moment are contained in a reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) on the 4th May last, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy. I will see whether there is any later information.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Major POLE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action has been taken by the Government to implement the recommendation made in the Report of the Defence Sub-committee of the Round Table Conference in January last that the question of the reduction of the number of British troops in India to the lowest possible figure should form the subject of an early expert investigation?

Sir S. HOARE: Expert investigation covering this matter was set on foot in the early summer and is still proceeding.

MEERUT CONSPIRACY TRIAL.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the total sum expended up to date in respect of the trial of the Meerut conspiracy case prisoners, including the cost of the magisterial inquiry previous to the trial, the fees of the judges and assessors as well as of the senior and junior Crown counsel, the expenditure in respect of
the conveyance of witnesses for the prosecution to Meerut from places within and without British-India, the cost of the board and lodging of the witnesses at Meerut, the printing of the prosecution exhibits, depositions, and orders, and the services of the handwriting expert and technical photographer, and when the counsel for the prosecution was engaged?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information later than that given by my predecessor to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) on the 26th January; I am making inquiries, the result of which will be communicated to the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. BROWN: In view of the fact that these people have now been in prison for two years, will the Government consider releasing them at once, and by that means save our cash, our credit and our reputation?

Sir S. HOARE: I have already answered that question once or twice in the last few weeks. I tell hon. Members opposite that I cannot interfere with the trial during its actual course.

Mr. J. H. HALL: What opportunities were given to the prisoners to secure counsel to help their case?

Sir S. HOARE: Such opportunities were given, and the trial has been going on month After month and year after year.

DISTURBANCES, KASHMIR.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information with regard to the situation in Kashmir; and whether an impartial inquiry is to be held with regard to the cause of the recent outbreaks and loss of life there?

Sir S. HOARE: So far as I am aware no further disturbances have occurred in Kashmir during the past week. I have not yet been informed whether arrangements have been made to investigate the causes of the recent outbreaks.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation there is very serious indeed? Will he not do his best to have an impartial inquiry into these cases?

Sir S. HOARE: We are in very close touch with the situation. We have a,
Resident in Kashmir, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we are watching the course of events very carefully.

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.

Commander BELLAIRS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any breach of the undertaking that Soviet Russia and the Third International shall abstain from propaganda has been reported from India since diplomatic recognition was accorded; and whether such Communist propaganda has been the subject of any official observations in India by officials or judges?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India have from time to time drawn attention to instances of Communist propaganda, and such action as has been found possible has been taken through the diplomatic channel. As regards the second part of the question, the Government of India have not brought any such observations to my notice.

Commander BELLAIRS: In view of these representations and our own experience, is the Government of India prepared to tell the Government of Russia, through the Foreign Office, that our patience is becoming exhausted and that we will take appropriate action?

Sir S. HOARE: I have already called the attention of the Foreign Office to cases of this kind when they have arisen.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: What steps actually have been taken?

Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend had better put that question on the Paper.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is this propaganda in breach of the covenant entered into with the late Foreign Secretary, I think in October, 1928?

Sir S. HOARE: That question had better be addressed to the Foreign Sectary. My own answer would be "Yes."

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER OPERATIONS (MEDALS).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received any communication from the Government of India relative to the grant of a medal to the
troops engaged in active operations on the North-West frontier of India in 1930–31?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir; and the matter is now under consideration.

BURMA (CONFERENCE).

Major POLE: 5.
(for Mr. FREEMAN) asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that women have always taken no active part in public life in Burma and no woman has so far been appointed, he will take steps to secure that representative women be appointed forthwith to the Round Table Conference on Burma?

Viscountess ASTOR: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to add any women to the list of delegates to the Burma Round Table Conference?

Sir S. HOARE: This matter is at present under consideration.

CHINA (SS. "TUCK WO").

Sir BASIL PETO: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the outrage perpetrated by armed Chinese soldiers on. members of the crew of the ss. "Tuck WO," owned by the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company, at Kiangyin, on the Yangtse River; whether the members of the crew were British subjects; and whether he has received any further particulars and proposes to take any steps for the protection of British shipping in Chinese waters?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Captain Eden): My Noble Friend has received a report from His Majesty's Minister in China saying that a number of civilians and armed soldiers boarded the ss. "Tuck WO" to search for opium. While on board they tied up and beat five Chinese members of the crew. No British, subjects were assaulted. Sir Miles Lampson is awaiting further details and a report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Nanking, in whose district the outrage occurred, on the action taken locally, before lodging a protest with the Nanking Government.

Sir B. PETO: Does the Foreign Office now propose to take any steps to afford protection to passengers and crews of vessels flying the British flag in Chinese waters?

Captain EDEN: No British subjects were concerned with this incident, although it was a British ship. We are making inquiries as to the exact circumstances, and the incident must certainly not be regarded as closed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

NATURALISATION QUALIFICATION.

Commander BELLAIRS: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Soviet Russia claims the right to grant naturalisation papers through its Embassies and Consulates without any residential qualifications; and whether he has any information as to any cases where the claim has been exercised in tins country?

Captain EDEN: There are provisions under Soviet law for the grant of Soviet citizenship to foreigners residing abroad. My Noble Friend has no information as to any cases having occurred in this country.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is not this a most extraordinary claim, of a kind that has not been put forward by any other nation?

Captain EDEN: It may be extraordinary, but no one has attempted to make use of it here. If they did so, we should, of course, not recognise it.

CREDITS.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 17.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the fact that the sterling credits of the Soviet Government established in this country for the purpose of financing purchases in the United States of America are now insufficient for the plumose in view of the depreciation of the value of sterling, he will make inquiries from the Soviet Government as to how they propose to meet their existing obligations and credits due to this country before any further credits are allowed?

Sir HILTON YOUNG (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am not, of course, able to confirm or correct the
hon. and gallant Member's statement as to the sufficiency of the credits of the Soviet Government for the specified purpose. So far as guarantees under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme are concerned, I do not think that any further direct inquiries from the Soviet Government are at present necessary or would be useful.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether further credits are going to be allowed; and, failing satisfactory assurances, will he stop any further credits?

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not chink that arises out of the question.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Government consider stopping any further credits until such time as the trade balance has been used up?

Sir H. YOUNG: That is obviously a question of which I should have notice.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH CONTRIBUTION).

Sir A. KNOX: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British contribution to the League of Nations will he paid this year in sterling or in Swiss francs?

Captain EDEN: His Majesty's Government's contribution to the League of Nations for 1931 was fixed in dollars and was paid in that currency purchased at an average rate of 4.865 dollars to the pound sterling.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. EVERARD: 16.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the area office at Brighton is to be reduced to a part-time office; and whether he will inform the House what arrangements will be made for the examination and treatment of those disabled men who have hitherto used the Brighton centre?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Yes, Sir. The volume of war pensions work at Brighton no longer justifies the retention of a full-time office but, after 27th November when the change will take place, the office and clinic will still be open on three days a week and I am satisfied that proper and adequate arrangements have been made to meet the requirements of the pensioners.

Mr. EVERARD: What is the saving in cost? Am I to understand that the limb-fitting centre, which has been very largely used, will remain open three days a week, and that a competent medical officer will be in charge of it on those three days?

Major TRYON: The limb-fitting arrangements will, at a future date, be undertaken through Roehampton. The total saving on this particular office is £2,100 a year.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: How much of that saving is on staff?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. DAY: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of cinematograph films that have been made by or for the Ministry of Agriculture upon which the sum of £1,828 15s. 2d. has been spent, and the subject of these films; and whether any further films are at present in the course of production?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The sum of £1,828 15s. 2d., which was the total amount spent by the Ministry on the production of cinematograph films in the six years ended July last, was in respect of 10 films. Since then two further films have been completed at a cost of £339 14s. 2d. The subjects covered include poultry education and research and the poultry industry, the destruction of foodstuffs by rats, and improvement in marketing methods. No further films are in preparation.

Mr. DAY: Are these films shown publicly or privately?

Sir J. GILMOUR: They are loaned out to various agricultural bodies and shown by them.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. EDE: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the difficulty of obtaining land from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, what steps he proposes to take to assist the county borough council of South Shields to obtain land for allotments; and what part of the cost he will be prepared to contribute, in view of the
number of unemployed in the borough and the demand for allotments by them?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I informed the hon. Member by letter on the 29th September, I had ascertained that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were ready to lease 18 acres of land to the borough council of South Shields for the purpose of allotments. In accordance with the decision announced in the White Paper (Command 3952) no funds will he available for the Ministry to contribute towards the cost of these allotments.

Mr. EDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 18 acres were subject to a most unjustifiable condition, with regard to payment for a sewer and another matter; and, further, is he aware that 18 acres are of absolutely no use in dealing with 14,000 unemployed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That must be a matter between the borough council and the Commissioners.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that every local authority in the north of England has had trouble with these people, in getting land for any purpose?

Mr. EDE: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture to what purposes he proposes to apply any further sums that may be refunded by allotment holders of the advances made to them under the Land Utilisation Act; and the sum that has so far been refunded?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Sums received from allotment holders in part payment of the seeds, fertilisers, and implements supplied to them will, as was originally contemplated, be applied in reduction of the cost of the service. The sum of £14,490 6s. has so far been received.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the most recent position as regards foot-and-mouth disease; and how many animals were treated with foot-and-mouth disease serum during the recent outbreaks, and with what result?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Twenty-three cases of foot-and-mouth disease have been confirmed in Great Britain since 1st August last, of which seven have occurred since 1st September. The most recent out-
break was confirmed yesterday at Graffham, Huntingdonshire. Infected area restrictions are at present in force in three districts, namely, within areas of 15 miles radius of Grafham, Huntingdonshire, and of Walsall, Staffs, and an area covering five miles radius of two infected places in adjacent parishes in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire. Since 1st August last, 375 cattle, 631 sheep, 514 pigs and 1 goat have been treated with foot-and-mouth disease serum. The disease appeared in only one instance among treated stock in this period, namely, on 30th August, when five cattle went down out of a number of animals which bad been inoculated with serum 13 days previously.

Sir F. HALL: What has been the actual result of the serum treatment?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that it is too early to form any definite conclusion.

Captain GUNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the position in regard to foot-and-mouth disease is more favourable than last year?

The latest date for which complete figures are available is the 1st January, 1931. The following statement shows the number of persona in receipt of poor relief on that date and the number of persons of certain classes in receipt of poor relief on subsequent dates.


—
Number on 1st January, 1931.
Number on latest available date.


Number.
Date.


1. Persons in receipt of poor relief, excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, casuals, and persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only—





(i) Institutional Relief
212,166
193,159
5th September, 1931.


(ii) Domiciliary Relief
775,072
776,735


Totals of 1
987,238
969,894



2. Rate-aided patients in mental hospitals
108,917
—



3. Casuals
11,576
13,239
5th September, 1931.


4. Persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only.
16,119
13,218
27th June, 1931.


Total
1,123,850
—

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 27.
asked the Minister of Health how many persons are now in receipt of outdoor Poor Law relief in the administrative area of the county of Durham, and the numbers in 1928 and 1929?

Sir J. GILM0UR: I am afraid I could not say.

Mr. SMITHERS: Does the Minister still consider that the best way of counteracting this disease is by slaughtering and the burning of the carcases?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, certainly.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the total number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales on the last convenient date; and has he any statistics showing the number of rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, casuals, and persons in receipt of domiciliary relief on the same date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. E. D. Simon): As the answer contains a number of figures in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFIOIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Mr. RITSON: 28.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons at present receiving domiciliary treatment under the Durham Public Assistance Committee?

Mr. SIMON: The number of persons in receipt of domiciliary poor relief, excluding 363 persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only, on Saturday, 26th September, 1931, chargeable to the Durham County Council was 48,911. The figures for the corresponding day in 1928 and in 1929 are not available, as the returns received in my Department prior to 1st April, 1930, related to Poor Law union areas, the boundaries of which were not coterminous with those of the administrative county.

KEW GARDENS (SCHOOL CHILDREN).

Mr. EDE: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if any reduction in the proposed admission fee to Kew Gardens will be made in the cases of classes of school children and other conducted educational parties?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been reviewing this matter since the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mrs. Manning) made a similar inquiry in a supplementary question on 1st October. As the result of further examination, I am arranging for the free admission of school children in charge of teachers on all days except students' days, provided an admission voucher is obtained by written application to the Director of the Gardens. On students' days, the normal charge, which is 6d. for parties up to 12, will be made.

SOCIAL SERVICES, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. LONGDEN: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the cuts in social services already agreed upon, as well as others contemplated, by the Birmingham City Council; and whether he can state the amounts involved in the different departments?

Mr. SIMON: My right hon. Friend is informed that no cuts have been agreed upon at present by the Birmingham City Council, that a general review of expenditure—both actual and contemplated —is under consideration by the Standing Committees of the Corporation, and that this does not necessarily imply that any recommendations will be made involving cuts in social services in Birmingham.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Mr. LONGDEN: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in each of the 10 largest towns on 30th July and 30th September, 1931, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Milner Gray): As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Numbers of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in certain towns.


Town.
27th July, 1931.
21st Sept., 1931.


London (County and City).
180,059
190,427


Glasgow
117,103
126,305


Birmingham
71,457
74,980


Liverpool
73,977
77,493


Manchester
64,121
67,871


Sheffield
57,769
58,334


Leeds
38,840
44,220


Edinburgh
20,617
22,987


Bristol
20,091
21,548


Hull
17,992
18,576

Mr. LONGDEN: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of Birmingham unemployed, in their different categories, who will be referred to the public assistance authority for consideration under the new transitional conditions?

Mr. GRAY: This question and questions 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 ask for detailed statistical information of the same character with regard to a number of places. The replies are necessarily somewhat long and contain a number of figures. Subject to the permission of the hon. Members, I propose to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

At 21st September, 1931, there were on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the Birmingham area 8,146 men and 3,081 women with claims authorised for transitional benefit. In addition, there were at 14th September, 1931, 7,587 men and 3,794 women in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit who had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years.

Mr. PALIN: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons now drawing unemployment benefit at the three Employment Exchanges situated in Newcastle-upon-Tyne will come under the proposed provision of transitional benefit, separating them into men and women?

Mr. GRAY: At 21st September, 1931, there were on the registers of the Employment Exchanges at Newcastle, Elswick and Heaton 7,152 men and 1,079 women with claims authorised for transitional benefit. In addition, there were at 14th September, 1931, 3,359 men and 600 women in receipt of benefit other than

Persons on the Registers of certain Employment Exchanges.


—
Abertillery.
Blaina.
Crumlin.


Total number of persons on the registers at 21st September, 1931.
2,097
994
2,254


Number of men and women on the registers at 21st September, 1931, with claims authorised for transitional benefit.
615
574
419


Number of men and women in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit at 14th September, 1931, who had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years.
315
54
11

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are in receipt of unemployment benefit in the administrative area of the county of Durham; and what is the estimated number who will be referred to the public assistance committee to calculate their rate of benefit during the next six months?

Mr. GRAY: At 21st September, 1931, there were 86,095 persons with claims to benefit admitted or under consideration on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the administrative county of Durham, including 18,743 men and 419 women with claims authorised for transitional benefit. Of those in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit at 14th September, 1931, 11,640 men and 432 women had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years. I am unable to make any estimate of the numbers likely to fall within these classes during the next six months.

Major HERBERT EVANS: Is the "administrative area of the county" to
transitional benefit who had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years.

Mr. DAGGAR: 33.
Asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered at the Employment Exchanges at Abertillery, Blaina and Crumlin at the latest available date, and the number who will be transferred to the public assistance committees for calculation of benefit when the new proposals come into operation?

Mr. GRAY: The following table gives the information required:

be taken as including the county borough of Gateshead?

Mr. GRAY: I shall require notice of that question.

Major EVANS: May I press the hon. Gentleman to tell me whether or not the "administrative area" includes this county borough, which has a separate administration?

Mr. GRAY: I must have notice of that question, which does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. RITSON: 36 and 37.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of persons at present receiving unemployment benefit through the Durham Employment Exchange;
(2) the number of persons now receiving transitional benefit through the Durham Exchange; and the number of these who will he subject to public assistance investigation when the 26 weeks' rule begins to operate?

Mr. GRAY: At 21st September, 1931, there were 4,754 persons with claims to
benefit admitted or under consideration on the registers of the Durham Employment Exchange, including 1,163 men and women with claims authorised for transitional benefit. In all these transitional cases payment of benefit will be subject to investigation as to means by the public assistance authority.

Mr. MILLS: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt

Persons on the Registers of certain Employment Exchanges.


—
Erith.
Dartford.
Gravesend.
Woolwich.


Number with claims authorised for transitional benefit at 21st September, 1931.
214
143
176
581


Number in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit at 14th September, who had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years.
287
253
366
1,187

As regards the latter part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) on 15th September.

Mr. KELLY: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men, women, young women, boys, and girls registered at

Persons on the Registers of the Rochdale Employment Exchange.


—
Numbers on the registers at 21st September, 1931, with claims admitted or under consideration.
Number with claims authorised for transitional benefit at 21st September, 1931.
Numbers in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit at 14th September, 193], who had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years.


Men
…
7,854
1,373
1,243


Young Men
…
539


Women.
…
6,328
1,259
1,509


Young Women
…
682


Boys
…
332
—
—


Girls
…
324


Total
…
16,059
2,632
2,752

Major POLE: 34.
(for Mr. FREEMAN) asked the Minister of Labour the total increase of unemployed since the present Government came into office?

Mr. GRAY: Between 24th August,, 1931, and 21st September, 1931, the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain increased by 77,833 from 2,733,782 to 2,811,615.
of transitional benefit signing on at each of the following Exchanges: Erith, Dartford, Gravesend, and Woolwich; the number that will come under the needs test by the operation of the Economy Bill; and whether any part of a disabled soldier's pension will be assessed in such an inquiry or test?

Mr. GRAY: The following table gives the information required:

Rochdale Exchange and in receipt of unemployment benefit, the number in receipt of transitional benefit, and the number who, under the Government proposal, will be referred to the public assistance committee for the calculation of their rate of benefit?

Mr. GRAY: The following table gives the information required:

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: What was the increase during the period of office of the late Government?

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in the Neath and Pontardawe areas Employment Exchanges at present in receipt of unemployment benefit, and
the number at present in receipt of transitional benefit who will be referred to the public assistance committee for the calculation of their rate of benefit?

Mr. GRAY: The following table gives the information required:

Persons on the Registers of the Neath and Pontardawe Employment Exchanges at 21st September, 1931.


—
Neath.
Pontardawe.


Number of persons with claims to benefit admitted or under consideration.
6,218
1,485


Number of men and women with claims authorised for transitional benefit.
911
119


Note.—Number of men and women in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit at 14th September, 1931, who had received 156 days or more in their current benefit years.
884
394

FOODSTUFFS (PREVENTION OF EXPLOITATION) BILL.

Mr. LEACH: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the words "present financial situation," on page 1, line 8, of the Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Bill, refer to a certain period or to any time at which action may be taken after the passing of the Measure into law?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Major Lloyd George): The words refer to the situation arising from the suspension of the Gold Standard. As the hon. Member is aware, the operation of the Bill is limited to six months.

Mr. LEACH: Do I understand that, after whatever date is fixed for the operation of the Measure, a prosecution may be undertaken and that the words "present financial situation" will apply to that moment when the prosecution is undertaken?

Major LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Member's question. The words mean from the date on which the Act becomes law and the Act will deal with offences after that date.

Mr. LEACH: Do the words "present financial situation" refer to the actual date on which the Bill will become an Act?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of raising that point later in the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether steps are being taken by the Government to divert all surplus food supplies from the Dominions to this country so as to ensure that no shortage may take place here nor any increase in cost to the consumer?

Major LLOYD GEORGE: Supplies of food are coming forward through the normal channels without difficulty, and there is no reason for Government action of the kind suggested.

COAL PRICES.

Mr. P. OLIVER: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the increase of 2s. a ton in the price of house coal in London on 1st October was the result of an increase in the pithead price of coal; and what steps he is taking to prevent undue increases in the retail price of house coal?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Foot): I am informed that the increase of 2s. a ton in the retail price of house coal in London on 1st October was the result of an increase in the pithead price of coal by a like amount. With regard to the second part of the question, a deputation from the Coal Merchants' Federation of Great Britain met me at my request on Thursday last. After stating their intention to take all steps possible to prevent the exploitation of the present situation, they gave me a definite assurance that the members of the federation, who represent an overwhelming majority of the house coal tonnage of the country, would make no increases in retail house coal prices unless there were corresponding increases in pithead prices.

Mr. BATEY: As the hon. Gentleman says that the 2s. is due to an increase in the pit-head price, will he also say in which county has the pit-head price increased

Mr. FOOT: I assumed that it was a general increase made at this time of year. That is so, according to the information supplied to me, but, if there is any point involved on which further information is desired, I shall be happy to try to get it for the hon. Member.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Does the hon. Gentleman know that last year the same increase took place without any corresponding increase of pit-head prices?

Mr. FOOT: I am not aware of that, but I understand that the increase which now arises corresponds with increases which have arisen in previous years at the same time.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.

Mr. STRAUSS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet come to any decision with regard to the London Passenger Transport Bill?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government respecting the London Passenger Transport Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): It is proposed to table a Motion to enable further proceedings on the Bill to be suspended till the next Session of Parliament, and then to be resumed upon a Motion made after notice by a Minister of the Crown.

TIN MINING INDUSTRY.

Mr. KELLY: 47.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of tin mines working in the country; and whether any mines have been restarted during this year?

Mr. FOOT: Only one mine, namely, East Pool and Agar, has been producing tin during this year, although dressing operations were carried on at a second mine, and pumping was continued at a third. I regret that no mines have been restarted during the year.

Mr. KELLY: Is the hon. Gentleman taking any steps to encourage these people responsible for tin mines to commence operations again?

Mr. FOOT: The matter has been under consideration by the Metalliferous
Mines Advisory Committee. There was a report from a sub-committee of that committee, and it is being considered by the main committee on the 14th of the present month. No report has yet been presented to the Department.

Mr. KELLY: Will this report be available for the Members of this House, who are very much interested in the development of this industry?

Mr. FOOT: I am not able to make a promise of that, but I think that information should be placed at the disposal of Members, especially as it is concerned with the county in which I am particularly interested.

DISTURBANCES, GLASGOW.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give any further information regarding the conflict between police and people in Glasgow on the evening of the 1st October?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am informed that, apart from the disturbances referred to in my reply to the question of the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton) on the 2nd instant, the only disturbance that occurred on the evening of the 1st instant took place in Garngad Road in the St. Rollox Division, where some of the crowd who had been concerned in the earlier disturbances in the centre of the city broke a number of windows and some looting took place. One arrest was made.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is due to the action of the Government in making cuts in unemployment benefit?

EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education the cost per head of educating a child at the present time in Scotland, England, Wales, Germany, France and Italy?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Kingsley Wood): The expenditure on elementary education from central and
local public funds in England and Wales, for the year 1929–30, amounted to £12 15s. 6d. per child in average attendance. My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to give comparable figures for France, Italy or Germany; but, he is sending the hon. Member such information as he possesses in regard to the expenditure on elementary education in those countries. As regards Scotland, I would refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. EDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures for educating a child in other than public elementary schools, say at Eton, or Harrow, or one of those places?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down for Thursday and see if he gets a reply.

Mr. EDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he is going to be here on Thursday?

ARMY EXAMINATIONS (COACHING).

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the recent reductions in pay, the Army Council will now exercise the right reserved to them under the King's Regulations, paragraph 324A, to permit officers and men on full pay to assist private tutors to prepare candidates for examination in military subjects provided the work is done in their own time and does not interfere with the proper discharge of military duties?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I can assure my hon. Friend that all applications of this nature receive careful consideration, and are granted whenever circumstances permit.

Mr. SAMUEL: Does that mean that the Army Council are prepared to receive applications and to give permission in suitable cases?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.

ARMISTICE DAY (CENOTAPH SERVICE).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will secure that preference be
given to the music of British composers when arranging the Armistice Day Cenotaph service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): It is proposed that the music at the Cenotaph service shall be the same as that played last year when, with the exception of Chopin's Funeral March, it was entirely British.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

LOANS IN FOREIGN CURRENCY (INTEREST).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of annual interest that has to be paid by His Majesty's Government on loans made in foreign currency; whether interest on the £50,000,000 credit has to be paid in foreign currency; and whether interest on the £80,000,000 credit is included in the total shown in answer to the first part of this question?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The amount of interest payable on loans made in foreign currency varies from year to year. It amounted to nearly £29,000,000 last year, but is reduced to about £15,000,000 this year and next year as a result of President Hoover's plan. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that figure of £15,000,000 based on a gold currency, and does that include the debt to America, or does it exclude the ordinary War Debt?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It includes the debt to America.

OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN, 1855.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the interest on the Turkish Loan of 1855, guaranteed by France and Great Britain, is still being paid by this country or our Dependencies, or whether France is paying a part; and whether the payment has to be made in gold, or in sterling, or francs?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: There has been no change in the position in regard to the Ottoman 'Guaranteed Loan of 1855, other than that referred to in the reply
given to the right hon. and gallant Member on 1st May, 1929; the interest on the loan is payable in sterling.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would this not be rather a good opportunity to ask France to bear her part in paying the interest?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am always willing to take advantage of every opportunity if there is a prospect of relief to the British Exchequer.

EXTERNAL OBLIGATIONS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the sum total of our annual external obligations in gold pounds or foreign currency, excluding the War Debt to America but including our contribution to the League of Nations, and any guarantee as, for instance, the Turkish Loan of 1855?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: In the calendar year 1930 the payments made by the Government in foreign currency, excluding the War Debt to the United States Government, amounted to about £16,000,000 and the Government's receipts in foreign currency, excluding reparations and inter-governmental War Debts, to about £24,500,000; the surplus of foreign receipts over foreign payments (excluding War Debts, etc.) thus amounted to about £8,500,000. As regards Loans guaranteed by His Majesty's Government I would refer the right hon. and gallant Member to the full statement published annually in the Finance Accounts.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. P. OLIVER: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the rate at which Entertainments Duty will be charged on season tickets issued by orchestral and similar societies for admission to a series of entertainments, some or all of which take place after the 9th November, when payment is made before the 9th November; and whether there will be any difference in the rate charged when admission to the series of entertainments is obtained by production of a single ticket and when admission to the series is obtained by production of separate tickets for each entertainment, all the tickets however being issued at the same time?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I made this statement in the course of the discussion in Committee a day or two ago, but I will repeat it now. With regard to the first part of the question, Entertainments Duty will be charged at the rates at present in force on any payments for admission to entertainments made before 9th November next irrespective of whether the entertainments take place before that date or not; the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (EVIDENCE).

Mr. J. H. HALL: 56.
(for Mr. MACLEAN.) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any of the evidence given before the May Committee on National Expenditure was considered of a confidential nature; whether any objection to having the evidence published was minuted by the committee; and, if not, whether, in view of the continued refusal to print the evidence, facilities will be given to Members of Parliament who wish to read the minutes of evidence by having a copy placed in the Library?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The views of the committee in regard to the second part are sufficiently indicated by the fact that, like the Geddes Committee, they did not submit any minutes of evidence along with their report. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

ESTATE DUTY (INSURANCE).

Mr. J. H. HALL: 57.
(for Mr. MACLEAN) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he arrived at the sum of £25,140 as an annual nett insurance payment. to provide for Estate Duty on an income of £50,000 per annum from investments; and whether he can state the number of such incomes?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The figure in question was arrived at on the lines laid down on page 78 of their report by the Colwyn Committee on National Debt and Taxation except that no account was taken of Legacy and Succession Duties. The statistics compiled in relation to the Surtax refer to total income and do not distinguish earned from investment income.

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND INDUSTRY (EVIDENCIE).

Mr. J. H. HALL,: 58.
(for Mr. MACLEAN) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the minutes of evidence of the Committee on Finance and Industry will be published?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is hoped to publish this evidence on Friday. There are two volumes, and I understand that the price for the two will be about £3 5s.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Chancellor also cause to be published for the information of Members a verbatim report of the proceedings now being carried on at Scarborough?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It would not be worth the expenditure.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.

Mr. DAY: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport what reply was made to the Railway Companies' Association in reply to their communication relating to the electrification of main-line railways?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gillett): After receiving the communication referred to, my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Transport discussed the whole question with representatives of the Railway Companies' Association and it was arranged that the companies would continue their investigations into the advantages of railway electrification.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any decision was come to as to carrying on?

Mr. GILLETT: I am afraid not.

POST OFFICE (MAIL CONTRACTS).

Major POLE: 24.
(for Mr. FREEMAN) asked the Postmaster-General whether any conditions as to wages and labour are laid down in the contracts entered into by His Majesty's Government for the carrying of British mails abroad; and, if so, will he state what they are?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No conditions as regards wages have ever been laid down in any of the four existing contracts with steamship companies for the conveyance of British mails abroad; but the contracts
contain a clause stipulating that the master and officers and at least three-fourths of the crew of every mail ship shall be British subjects.

Sir F. HALL: I noticed that two hon. Members rose to put this question. Have you not laid it down, Mr. Speaker, that before a Member asks a question which is in the name of another Member, he should receive an intimation from that Member?

Mr. SPEAKER: That certainly is the rule.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of the conditions of service existing in the British Postal Service, the Government regard themselves in a moral position to lay down conditions in contracts abroad?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go to-night in the event of the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: We want to get the first two Orders on the Paper.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is it necessary to suspend the Rule for the Sunday Performances Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: Does my right hon. Friend mean that he will give it to me before Eleven o'clock?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I gather that there is a considerable division of opinion on the Bill, and, in the circumstances, does the Prime Minister think that it is necessary to suspend the Rule in order to get through such a controversial Measure?

The PRIME MINISTER: I thought that there was complete agreement on both sides as it is a Bill that came over with us. It settles this matter temporarily as it is so very pressing.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the Prime Minister aware that, if this Bill is not passed, the whole of London will be very much inconvenienced and disorganised?

Mr. MORRIS: Does the Prime Minister seriously contemplate suspending the Rule in order to carry it through?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that the House will carry it through. That is why I propose the suspension of the Rule; it is such a pressing practical necessity.

Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that an enormous number of people are spending their time in cinemas when they would otherwise

be in places where they would not get the same education?

Motion made, and Question put.

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 58.

Division No. 518.]
AYES.
[3.27 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Ganzonl, Sir John
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Penny, Sir George


Albery, Irving James
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allan, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l.,W.)
Gillett, George M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Astor,Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Purbrick, R.


Atkinson, C.
Gower, Sir Robert
Pybus, Percy John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gray, Milner
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Remer, John R.


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hanbury, C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Harbord, A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harris, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Buchan, John
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Savery, S. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Simms, Major-General J.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Butler, R. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Skelton, A. N.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Campbell, E. T.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm-,W.)
Knight, Holford
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lambert, Rt Hon. George (S. Molton)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colman. N. C. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Colville, Major D. J.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, A. Duff
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sueter, Rear- Admiral M, F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Thomas, Rt Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thomson, Sir F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Train, J.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J (Hertford)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dawson, Sir Philip
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
White, H. G.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Withers, Sir John James


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mulrhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nall Cain, A. R. N.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Ferguson, Sir John
Nathan, Major H. L.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)



Foot, Isaac
O'Connor, T. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ford, Sir P. J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Mr. Classey.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)



NOES.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Batey, Joseph
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Benson, G.
Chater, Daniel


Cowan, D. M.
Logan, David Gilbert
Scurr, John


Daggar, George
Longden, F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
MacLaren, Andrew
Shillaker, J. F.


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ede, James Chuter
March, S.
Simmons, C. J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Han, Upton)
Marley, J,
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, Fred
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morley, Ralph
Strauss, G. R.


Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Herriotts, J.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Hoffman, P. C.
Mort, D. L.
Wallace, H. W.


Kelly, W. T.
Noel-Suxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Welsh, James (Palsley)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
West, F. R.


Lawson, John James
Palln, John Henry
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Leach, W.
Pole, Major D. G.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Lees, J.
Sanders, W. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Finance (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chepping Wycombe) Bill, with an Amendment.

Amendments to—

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SUSPENSION OE PRIVATE BILLS.

That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution:
That the promoters of every Private Bill which shall have been introduced into this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which shall have passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, or which shall be pending in this House, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Noon on the last Sitting day of the present Session; and provided that all fees dues by them thereon, up to that period, be paid:
That an alphabetical list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages at which they shall have arrived, shall be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed;
That every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament for business other than judicial business, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session, and, where any sum of money has been deposited, as required by Standing Order No. 67, that such deposit has not been withdrawn, together with a certificate of that

fact, from the proper officer of the court in which such money was deposited.

That in case any such Bill brought from the House of Commons in the present Session, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in this House, shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament, the agent for such Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office after the Bill shall have passed the House of Commons and prior to the First Reading thereof in this House, a declaration stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session; and, where any sum of money has been deposited, that such deposit has not been withdrawn, together with a certificate of that fact from the proper officer:
That the proceedings on such Bills shall be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages:
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any Private Bill which shall have originated in this House or been brought up from the House of Commons in the present Session, in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed:
That all petitions presented in this Session relating to any Private Bill shall, if necessary, be referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session:
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on any Bill unless their petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session, unless that time shall not have expired before it closes, in which case, in order to be heard, their petition shall be presented not later than the fourth day on which the House shall sit for business other than judicial business in the next Session.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — FOODSTUFFS (PREVENTION OF EXPLOITATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am glad to note the applause which has come from hon. Members opposite, and I hope that it indicates that, perhaps for the first time in this short period of the Session, a Bill comes before us which will be passed with general consent. Certainly, I do not think this Measure will meet with opposition in any quarter. The object of the Bill, put in a single sentence, is to ensure that there shall be no exploitation, either by the creation of shortages or by unreasonable increases in price, of articles of food and drink of general consumption by reason of the financial situation in which we find ourselves owing to having gone off the Gold Standard. I see that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is not in her place, but I should like to give her the assurance that it is necessary to include the' word "drink," because I understand that things like tea would not be covered if the word "drink" were not inserted.
I have used the words "to ensure" advisedly, because one could not say that the powers sought in this Bill would be justified by anything that has happened hitherto or appears likely to happen, and, if Parliament had been going to remain in Session, it may well be that no such Bill would ever have had to be produced. The normal course would have been to wait until there had been evidence that there was exploitation, or that exploitation was to be expected, and then to come to the House with those facts as a justification and ask for powers. The justification for this Bill is that the Government felt, as I think the House will agree, that we ought not to separate without taking the powers which are embodied in this Bill in case it should be necessary at any time in future, when Parliament is not sitting, to use such powers. The powers which
the Bill seeks to give to the Board of Trade are, in effect, the same powers as will exist under the Emergency Powers Act, but I am, advised that it will not be possible to employ the powers under that Act for this purpose, and that if such powers are to be bestowed they must be given by a short Bill of this kind.
In producing the Bill, I do so with the full concurrence of those men in the different trades who have been advising the Board of Trade throughout arid giving very disinterested help. In common fairness I ought to pay a tribute to traders, both wholesale and retail, for the attitude which they have taken up. If I may put it in words which will no doubt strike a chord of sympathy in the heart of the right hon. Gentleman opposite who, I understand, is going to follow me, we have had both wholesale and retail co-operation.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I would like to know what retail organisations have been consulted?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Quite a number, including the co-operative societies. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps I had better make my speech, and, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, he can raise any point afterwards. Let me say at once that I wish to include in my tribute the Wholesale Co-operative Organisation. I should have seen Sir Thomas Allen on the very day on which we went off the Gold Standard, but he was away. I saw him the next day, however, and I arranged with him, in common with representatives of many other organisations, that I should have their complete co-operation and maintain a complete liaison with them from day to day.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the primary producers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not quite sure who the hon. Member means by the primary producers.

Mr. TAYLOR: Farmers and fruit growers.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I have not, and I do not think I could usefully do so, because the people one has to consult and to work with in a matter of this kind are the great whole-
sale people, but I will come to the general way in which this is worked in a moment. On the morning of Monday the 21st of September, the day on which we went off the Gold Standard, early in the morning I asked representatives of the great wholesale food trades to come and see me, and they included wholesale dealers in meat, flour, bacon, sugar, tea, provisions and so on. The representatives whom I met were men of great experience in trade, and men who had had much experience in the organisation of our food supplies during the War. I explained the position to them and I received an immediate response. They immediately made representations to their different trades, and from all of them there came at once a ready response to my invitation to co-operate with the Government in ensuring that there should be no exploitation. I could quote a great many examples to the House, but I will take just one or two. I have received the following letter from Mr. Gordon Campbell the President of The Imported Meat Trade Association Incorporated:

"Dear Mr. President,

With reference to my letter to you of yesterday, I called a meeting this morning of the Council of the Imported Meat Trade Association Incorporated. The members of the council, as representing the importers and wholesalers of the meat trade, fully agree that every effort should be made to continue to conduct all business on normal lines, and, more particularly, to avoid any rise in prices as a consequence in the fall in the value of the pound sterling.

The council hold a similar view to that expressed by the South American importers at yesterday's meeting and are of opinion that there is no reason to anticipate any marked advance in the current quotations for meat on account of the position of the exchange.

It was agreed that in addition to the abundant supplies of home-grown meat, there are ample supplies here and afloat of New Zealand and Australian meat; and the meeting concurred in the view that there seems to be no cause to expect that the public will be put to inconvenience by a rise in prices in the retail shops."

On the same day the London Provision Exchange passed the following resolution:

"Having regard to the wishes of the Government the members of the London Provision Exchange at an extraordinary meeting held to-day resolved that they would co-operate with the Government with
all the means possible in all questions affecting the trade, including prices, supplies and other matters."

Their action was not confined to resolutions of that kind but they took immediate action on the first day to ensure that there should be no panic buying and no rise in price. It was enormously important to ensure that result on the first day after coining off the Gold Standard because as everybody knows this is a question which must be handled at the wholesale end. [An HON. MEMBER: "More about the Gold Standard!"] Yes, if some people had talked more effectively about the Gold Standard and taken action sooner we should never have gone off that standard. I do not wish to raise any controversial issue in regard to what I hope will be treated as a non-controversial measure.

On the first day after going off the Gold Standard, it was enormously important to avoid any panic buying by either the retailer or the wholesaler. I know from what took place in the market on that day that if the situation had not been handled at the wholesale end, we might have had buying on a scale which might have produced a panic, and you might have had an increase of prices which it would have been very difficult to overtake. Therefore I think it was of the greatest importance that, at the very outset, arrangements were made for continuing trade on a normal basis. In a case of this kind obviously it is very important that we should have the co-operation of wholesale firms. What we have to do is to ensure that there shall be a steady flow of supplies through normal channels at a reasonable price, and that can only be secured by making certain of receiving co-operation through all the manifold channels of distribution in this country. That is absolutely necessary to obtain a wise, firm and proper administration of the great wholesale food trade. That is what on this occasion I claim that we have obtained, and that is really the key to the situation.

We have received many promises of co-operation from the retail trade, cooperative Societies, great chain stores, the federations of grocers, the meat traders and so on. By these arrangements the public have in fact, secured more than a square deal, and I say that advisedly. I do not think anyone will deny that statement. I put this to one of the greatest accountants in the coun-
try. If you take a strict business basis a firm would be entitled to write up their stocks up to the replacement value, If you buy in sterling a commodity from overseas, the price of which is affected by a fall in the sterling exchange, and if you are selling the same commodity, even if you hold a stock bought in sterling when sterling was at the gold point, when you have sold, whether as a wholesaler or as a retailer, and you come to replace your stock, obviously you have only the number of pounds which your last sale has produced; and if, owing to depreciation in the sterling exchange, it costs you more pounds to buy your new stock than before, then obviously you are to that extent out of pocket on that transaction. Suppose that you are buying corn for £100, that you then sell for £100, and that in order to get the same amount of corn next week it costs you £110, obviously you will have to get the extra £10 from somewhere. Therefore I say that the public has had something more than a square deal in the fact that a very large amount of transactions were conducted on the old sterling basis. When you are dealing with a country like this, where we are dependent on overseas supplies for four-fifths of our wheat, butter and cheese, for half our meat, the bulk of our bacon, and nearly all our sugar, it is inevitable—[Interruption.] In those circumstances, it is inevitable that stocks must cost more in sterling to replace, and they are, of course, costing more at the present time. But not only has there been no evidence of exploitation up to the present, but large deliveries are being made wholesale, and large retail sales have continued, at the old prices. That has happened at a time when prices have been abnormally low, and at a season of the year when there always comes a certain number of seasonal rises in price—rises which would have taken place even if the pound had remained at its old par value. Therefore, I cannot claim that these powers are needed on account of anything that is happening to-day, but I ask the House to give them to the Government as an insurance. The powers are very wide and general, and they follow substantially the powers under the Emergency Powers Act. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill says:
If it appears to the Board of Trade, that by reason of the action of any persons in exploiting the present financial situation
there is, or is likely to arise in Great Britain or in any part thereof, any shortage of or any unreasonable increase in the price of any article of food or drink of general consumption, the Board of Trade inay by Regulation make such provision as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of remedying or preventing that shortage or increase in price.

Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 provides for power to delegate to other persons the exercise of the powers under the Act, and this is practically identical with the power contained in Sub-section (1) of.Section 2 of the Emergency Powers !let. Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) provides for penalties, following Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act; and Subsection (3) of Clause 1 provides that action shall not be avoided by reason of regulations having been revoked or having run out. That is the exact counterpart of Sub-section. (5) of Section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act. By Clause 2 of the Bill the operation of the Act is limited to six months, which brings it into line with the Gold Standard (Amendment) Act, which the House passed the other day.

I admit that these powers are deliberately designed to be as wide and as general as possible, just as the powers in the Emergency Powers Act are, and I am sure that that is necessary, because, if you are to have powers at all, they must be such as to enable you to take quick action in whatever way is likely to be most effective. If you want information, you must be able to get it promptly. If it is necessary to take action, that action must be taken at once, and you must have power to suit your action to whatever is the need of a particular case. I do not, naturally, intend setting up any vast, complex system of control. I should say that that would he extremely undesirable, and in any case I need not argue it, because, by the time you had set up machinery like, say, the Ministry of Food during the War, the whole emergency would have long since passed, and the pound would long since have been stabilised at whatever may be the ultimate figure at which it will find its level, so that the situation requiring to be dealt with would be a thing of the past. There were some rather long arguments between hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and myself, in the early part of the summer, about another Bill,
which proposed to set up very elaborate inquiries, possibly leading ultimately to fixation of prices in certain cases—

Mr. LONGDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that this Bill is less inquisitorial than the Consumers' Council Bill?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, infinitely more, and infinitely more effective. I admit that the powers for which I am asking to-day are, if you like, as inquisitorial and as drastic as ever they can be, because, if there is need for exercising them, you must give to the Government Department power to exercise, if you like, an arbitrary power at the shortest notice. What I am seeking to point out is that, even if you had an Act of that kind in force, it would be perfectly useless for the present purpose, because the sort of inquiry that you would have to set up, be it right or wrong, would take an enormous amount of time; it would have to be most meticulously conducted; and, when you had finished, you would have, perhaps, information which might he valuable information, but would be information about a situation which had long since passed. What you have to do to-day, if these powers are to be useful, is to do, perhaps, in a day or two, when a situation has arisen, all that you contemplate may be necessary. That is why I deprecate any suggestion of a vast machine, but I do ask for these stringent powers.

Mr. STRAUSS: Will these powers in-chide the power to purchase foodstuffs or other commodities, or is there to be merely an inquiry into the situation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The powers are wide enough, but, if the Government wanted to engage in purchase, a Vote of the House would be required. I do not, however, contemplate anything of that kind. [Interruption.] I want to be perfectly accurate. I believe that these powers are wide enough for the setting up of a Government Purchase Board if it were desired so to do, but I think a Financial Resolution would be necessary, or certainly a Vote, for the purpose of doing it, and, naturally, I do not contemplate anything of that kind. What I do contemplate might happen would be a case in which there was general agreement as to the proper course in a particular trade, that a particular
trader, or a particular section of trade, was not playing the game, and in that case the Department would be able to come in and divert supplies, which is the most effective thing that could be done to a trader in such a case. It would be possible to divert supplies from a man who was not playing the game, and to see that the trade was carried on by people who were. That is a far more drastic, but a far more effective, power than any amount of Government control or Government purchase.
4.0 p.m.
The last thing in the world that I want to do, and the last thing in the world that, in a case like this, the House would be well advised to do, would be to interrupt the normal flow of trade through the normal channels. [Interruption.] You cannot change the whole of the great food trades of this country by an emergency order under an emergency Bill. We may debate that matter on another occasion, but certainly it cannot be in question to-day. What this Bill seeks to do is to ensure that the normal flow of trade will continue through the normal channels, without exploitation at any point, and that, I think, is the most effective service which anybody can render to the country in this connection at the present time. As I have said, the Bill gives the equivalent of the Emergency Powers Act, with which the House is familiar, and I ask for these powers, not to deal with the situation as it exists to-day, but to ensure that what is happening to-day will continue. I ask that frankly in the hope, and, I may say, in the belief, that if things continue with the co-operation and good will which have been shown all through these great trades up to the present, these powers will never have to be used; but if the need should arise to use them, then the Government would not hesitate to do so.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The speech to which we have just listened from the President of the Board of Trade had not, it seemed to me, the same kind of timbre about it which one expects from the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, he has been a little ill at ease. He doubtless had in mind, when he was speaking, all those old arguments of his on the Second Reading of the Consumers' Council Bill and the somewhat later speeches—always well argued—in the Standing Committee, because to-day he
has come down to ask the House, on the very first emergency which arises after having finished our labours in Committee on that Bill, to ask, in his own words, for far more drastic and far more inquisitorial powers than ever the Socialist Government asked for in the Standing Committee. It is a very, very frank admission. I am anxious to-day that what I have to say should not in any way detract from any voluntary efforts that any section of traders in the whole of the community may be willing to make to help the country in a time of difficulty. I quite recognise what the President of the Board of Trade says, that there have been large and important sections of the traders of the country who have in the hour of financial difficulty, because of the exchanges, expressed their willingness to co-operate with the Government of the day in certain directions. But that must not prevent us from looking at this Bill and the Government's real purpose behind the Bill, because the more I look at it, arid the more I listened to his explanation of it, the more I think it is a sheer piece of bluff, and, from the very words he has uttered this afternoon, in which he said that if the House had been going to continue in session the Bill would not have been necessary—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Member must not misquote me. What I said was, that in the ordinary course, if the House were in session, I should not come to the House with a Bill of this kind until I could show that there was a good case for exercising the powers, and it might well be, if the House had gone on sitting and the same co-operation had continued as there is to-day, the Bill would not have been necessary.

Mr. ALEXANDER: In other words, as we are, apparently, on the eve of the announcement of a Dissolution and an appeal to the electorate, it is clear that, having gone off the Gold Standard, this great, wonderful National Government, which was called into being to prevent us from going off the Gold Standard, there being a rise in prices now, and a period of much higher rise in prices during the course of the election, then they must be able to say to the country, "Before the House dissolved, we took far more drastic powers than even a
Socialist Government would have taken." Yet all the time the right hon. Gentleman is trying to reassure his special friends among the traders that they are being such good children that he does not mean to do anything at all, and he bases a part of that upon the most extraordinary statement.
I do not know who are the particular accountants to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred for advice, and whom he was, apparently, quoting this afternoon as to what ought to be the practice of honest traders in dealing with replacement stock values, but I could not help wondering, when he was speaking this afternoon, whether he had not forgotten—I gave him credit for being a most studious reader of all documents affecting his Department, and I do not believe he has forgotten already—the reports of the committees under the Profiteering Acts because at the time the committees were set up to make wide and specific inquiries into matters like these they laid down quite definitely that it was not reasonable to treat the public in this way, that as soon as the price of raw materials went up you should increase your price of finished articles before you had liquidated the stock of raw materials at the lower prices. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a specific reinforcement of that, perhaps he will allow me to quote the report. Here is a quotation from a report on the soap industry prepared by a sub-committee under the Central Profiteering Committee. After a most lengthy examination of all the details they say;
We have shown that although the raw material market was followed upwards, the great fall in that market has been ignored so far as the selling price of soap is concerned.
And, because of practices like that, they reported that it was essential that the State should take powers to control operations of that kind. On the same question—because I know hon. Members will want me to put the co-operative case —I quote from the same report where it says:
The Co-operative Wholesale Society's prices have, on a rising market, been based (broadly) on actual costs"—
Not replacement costs.
and on a falling market on replacement costs. Thus the Co-operative Wholesale Society have generally taken the lower of
the two costs, which (as we shall show later in our report) is the exact reverse of what other soap-makers have done.
The practice of the Co-operative Wholesale Society in. that case was the only practice which can be justified as a square deal to the consuming public, and the right hon. Gentleman, both in his interview last week reported in the "Times" and others newspapers, and in the House to-day, did really say to the public that they have got something more than a square deal, in that certain groups of traders have agreed not to increase their prices on replacement costs, is a, complete travesty of what one would say is the proper basis of justice to the community. I think that a detailed examination of the provisions of the Bill will go far to prove what I have already been suggesting, that this Bill is really eye-wash and a piece of blatant humbug drafted for a coupon election. I am going to demonstrate that, because the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he does not mean to operate his Bill; in fact, he had already indicated that in the Press interview which he gave. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 says:
It appears to the Board of Trade, that by reason of the action of any persons in exploiting the present financial situation there is, or is likely to arise in Great Britain or in any part thereof, any shortage of or any unreasonable increase in the price of any article of food or drink of general consumption, the Board of Trade, may by regulation make such provision as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of remedying or preventing that shortage or increase in price.
I want to know—to use the right hon. Gentleman's own language in the Debate on the Consumers' Council Bill—how in heaven's name you are going to deal with increased prices except by control? He has said in his interview, and he has said this afternoon, that there is no intention to control prices. I understand he might deal with a question of shortage by giving orders that a block of foodstuffs might be diverted from this or that quarter, but how is he going to deal with what is implied in these words:
make such provision as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of remedying or preventing a shortage or increase in price.
If he is not going to control prices all the way through, according to his own argument on the Bill which was before
Parliament this Session, this Bill is just a piece of humbug and bluff, because you cannot prevent an increase of that kind unless you have first settled the fair price, and then you make it, by Government Order, a criminal offence to increase that price. There is no other way of proceeding than that. When we proposed on the Consumers' Council Bill to take compulsory powers of that kind, the right hon. Gentleman, in words far more eloquent than I could use, described them as awful Socialism, yet he knows perfectly well that you cannot deal with an increase of price of that character unless you are prepared, at whatever stage may be necessary, actually to control the price.
There are one or two things in the Bill about which I would like to ask some questions. The right hon. Gentleman said in an interview:
The Board of Trade will ordinarily act through the trading organisations." I should like to know what that means. Let me quote the Bill as it stands. It says:
(2) Regulations made under this Section may, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision—
(a) confer or impose on any person or body of persons such powers and duties as the Board of Trade may consider necessary or expedient.
Do I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said to the Press in explanation of his Bill, that he proposes actually, by regulations, to confer or impose powers upon trading organisations? Because one could not but feel somewhat uneasy about that this afternoon when he talked about diverting supplies. It looked as if he were going to work through certain trading organisations, and through them to divert supplies from some people and let them go to others. Is that his intention?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I thought I made it perfectly clear in my speech. I gave as an example that on a previous occasion when I had to use emergency powers—I think only twice I had to exercise them—I found one effective way, where you had a body of traders who agreed to play the game and agreed what was the fair thing to do, and one man stood out and tried to upset the market by charging unreasonable prices, I did on that occasion threaten, and I had only to use the threat, to divert sup-
plies to people who were playing the game. And without hesitation I would do it again.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Then, I take it, that the right hon. Gentleman would use the powers of the Board of Trade direct?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.

Mr. ALEXANDER: He is nut going to impose them through an organisation. That is very important, because we ought not to be leaving the House of Commons and afterwards finding Statutory regulations giving special powers to special groups of persons who are going to act against other groups of persons in trade. It would be a travesty to give powers of that kind. Uneasiness exists in the minds of many traders in view of what the President of the Board of Trade said in his explanation. It is not proposed to fix prices, the complaints of the public will go to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade will ordinarily act through a trading organisation. One could only take that as meaning that he was going to operate Sub-section (2) by giving actual powers to a trading organisation.
Let me look at the Bill in a little more detail from a legal point of view. Subsection (1) says:
If it appears to the Board of Trade.
What does that mean? We discussed that in Committee on the Consumers' Council Bill. In that case, "before it could appear to the Board of Trade" it. was necessary to get -an investigation and a full report from a council which had compulsory powers. In this case, it would "appear to the Board of Trade" apparently from nothing except some common informer's information. If that is so, let us follow it through and see where the President of the Board of Trade will be. I believe that, as soon as he made a regulation to deal with that position, he would be faced with an action or an injunction or for a rule to be made to show whether or not the regulation was ultra vices, and he would have long arguments to find out how it appeared, what was the evidence that the Board of Trade worked upon, and whether there was anything really binding in these lines of the Statute which would enable them to make such a rule. Indeed, there have already been examples where cases have been lost, or only got through with very great difficulty, in
defence of a regulation made under such words as these. There was a case dealing with one of the Orders made by the Ministry of Agriculture. It seems to me to be leaving the Bill in.a very loose form in the midst of an emergency if be can be faced with actions in the Courts which will hold the whole thing up to show that the regulation is ultra tares, and he has no basic evidence on which he can go—nothing but some common informer. Until he has proved to a Court in a case like that that he has something better than that, he will not be able to get the operation of his regulation.
There is another word or two in the Bill that ought to be explained. What is meant by the words,
the present financial situation.
How will the courts construe that? I should not think it could be made to cover anything really more than the actual financial situation which existed on the appointed day of the Bill. Is the President in Committee going to put in words which will indicate that the financial situation which operates through the whole life of the Measure is to be the financial situation an which action is to be based, because it seems to me, as the words are at present, that in a court of law you could drive a coach and six through it? There is another phrase in the Bill that makes me think it is so much bluff. There is the use of the words "unreasonableness of increasing prices." We ought to know who is the judge of the unreasonableness of the increase in price. Is it to be the court, or is it to be the Board of Trade? I could not help thinking, as I heard marks of approval from the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), that he will be very much lacking in his duty as he saw it in the Standing Committee if he does not say a word or two on behalf of the small trader, for, let us make no mistake about it if this Bill operates at all, it will operate against the few small traders against whom also some common informer lays information. Who is to decide whether the shopkeeper has been guilty of an offence or not? Is it the court or the Board of Trade? Apparently, he is to be prosecuted criminally before there has ever been an investigation at all, as far as we can see, or any opportunity for the trader to make a case. What is an unreasonable increase in
price? It is very illuminating to find the complete volte face that the right hon. Gentleman has executed since dealing with the previous Bill. May I quote one or two words? He said, on 3rd June, 1931:
I want these words inserted, because they have a limiting effect on the arbitrary powers of the President of the Board of Trade.
To-day, he says he is taking more powers than anyone else ever took before except in the Emergency Powers Act. He is a sort of would-be Mussolini, only he sits on that side of the House where his friends will not allow him to be one. On the same day, he said:
If the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw this Bill and come forward with an agreed measure under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, he will have our support. We object to a general roving power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 3rd June, 1931; col. 631.]
What sort of power is he taking now? He says he has complete inquisitorial powers, not laid down and approved by Parliament as we proposed, but something to be done hole and corner, under regulations which the Bill does not even require to be laid before Parliament. Parliament will never have an opportunity of saying whether they are right or wrong, except possibly in some Debate in the distant future on some Supply Vote of the Board of Trade—these wonderful people who were so much afraid of the arbitrary power and the roving power which would have been taken by the last Government.
May I say a word or two about prosecutions and trials? I hope we shall be told who is to undertake the prosecutions. Is the Board of Trade going to be the responsible body for instituting them, or does the President propose to devolve powers upon other people? If so, who are they to be? Surely Parliament has a right to know that. It seems an amazing thing to let a Bill go away giving someone power to make regulations which will never be laid before Parliament, giving wide powers of prosecution on facts which are never disclosed apparently until the offender is haled before the court. It is an extraordinary position. Then I observe that the offender is liable to a fine or imprisonment, or both. What is to happen in the case of companies? If the
Bill were really operated fairly, it should only apply as a general rule to very large companies who might be tempted—I agree I do not think they have been up to the moment—on a rise or fall of the market to take the largest possible rate. That is where the real damage comes to the community, and not by one or two small individual traders making a variation in the price.
What is to happen in the case of a prosecution against a company? Whom do you prosecute—the secretary or the managing director? Do you send them to prison or fine them? You certainly cannot imprison a company. Do you take powers to prosecute the whole of the board? If you are to confine the prosecution to an individual, how are you to deal with the other penalties that are laid down? The Bill says that articles sold at an excessive price are to be confiscated. From whom are you to recover that money? Are you to have a right of civil action or are you to give powers to a criminal court to order damages to be paid by an individual or a, company, because I am not at all sure that you will not in these circumstances have good cause for a civil action against the Board of Trade? I am not a lawyer. I am simply looking at it and putting questions from the point of view of a layman. The House of Commons is entitled to know before the Bill leaves this place. What does the Bill mean when it says that the articles on which excess profits have been charged are to be confiscated? I should imagine those articles are the property of the person who is charged with profiteering.on them. What is the real object in ordering that they shall be taken away from the people to whom they have been sold? I cannot think that is what is intended and I think the right hon. Gentleman might have another look at the drafting of the Clause and see if he cannot make a better fist of it than that.
Another thing I cannot understand is why the local authorities, who have had so much power in the past in times of emergency in seeing that this sort of arrangement shall be properly carried out, are completely ignored in this Bill. Is it not proposed to use them? Is there to be no method at all of local regulation or inspection? There is another matter that is of very great seriousness to the trading interest. It has always been argued to us when we proposed to take
powers that it was essential from two points of view, first if you were to get at the truth and, secondly, if you were to refrain from seriously damaging the trade of the country, that trade information given in secret should on no account be divulged to the public, and in the Consumers' Council Bill we had full powers given for penalties against anyone concerned in a private trade inquiry who gave away information that would do damage to trade. Where are those powers in this Bill? There are none at all. Apparently, any trade secret, or anything else that can be brought out, is to have no sanctity whatever. It is time that the President of the Board of Trade gave us some reassurance on that point. There is another question I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade. He was responsible for the appointment of a body called the Food Council. The Food Council, it is true, have always been a little glum because they have not had sufficient powers, but I am sure that he will agree that they have conducted such a large number of trade inquiries over a wide field that they have gained considerable technical experience. Are they to be made use of? If so, we ought to be told exactly how they are to be used.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As a matter of fact—-I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House was specifically asked that question some days ago, and I said that, with regard to general organisation and working, it obviously was not a matter for the Food Council, and I consulted the deputy-chairman, and he entirely agreed. But, if there was a case for more particular inquiry to be made, of course J should be delighted to make use of them.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I should have thought that the best means would have been to adopt the recommendations which the Food Council made to the right hon. Gentleman while he was in office in the last Conservative Government, in which they said:
In order to enable the Food Council to discharge the duties entrusted to them by His Majesty's Government it is necessary for them to be strengthened by powers to obtain adequate information, and we melee this report to you for consideration by the Government.
If the President of the Board of Trade would say that they are going to give
the Food Council powers right away under that head, I think that it would be a very good thing, and I am quite sure that no hon. Friend of mine on this side of the House would object to any such powers being given.

Sir P. CUNL.IFFE-LISTER: May I answer that at once? I do not want the House to be in any doubt. If I conducted an inquiry under the powers of this Bill, I should invest whoever undertook the inquiry with all the necessary powers.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think we are entitled to a little explanation as to what the right hon. Gentleman means by inquiry in this case. What does he mean by an inquiry? An inquiry of long duration, or some subtle inquiry which he wants to snake the basis of an indictment against a particular firm or association? That is the whole question. It is obvious to me, from the very way the answer was given, that this Bill is just a frame-up, a piece of bluff, and is not going to be used at all. It is simply a piece of election propaganda. [Interruption.] I heard somebody say that this is better than the Consumers' Council Bill. The Consumers' Council Bill had certain specific merits. It did take the House of Commons into its confidence as to what it was intended to do. It did ask the House of Commons and Parliament to give specific powers. It did lay down a, course of action, and it had the honesty to state that even where regulations were necessary they would be submitted to the House so that the House of Commons might know what some dictatorial Department was going to do in the name of Parliament. Certainly, the Consumers' Council Bill had various specific merits, and I see nothing better yet in the Bill which we have before us this afternoon.
It is obvious from the speech which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade and from the one or two immediate replies which he has given to questions that we shall have to move certain Amendments in Committee. Bluff as it is, I do not think that we should divide against the Bill, produced as it is for window-dressing at this stage when everybody knows that the House is to dissolve in a very few hours, and, of course, remembering also that the very drafting of the Bill is making a very fine precedent for a future Socialist Adminis-
tration. I do not believe that the Government ever intend to use the Measure, but hon. Members opposite must not blame us if they put the Bill upon the Statute Book and then find, when the time comes, as it surely will come, that we shall use it with far greater insistence than the present Government ever intend to use it.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: The party opposite since they have been on that side of the House have been peculiarly fortunate in those who have been selected from their number to make important speeches during the Debates which have taken place during the last four weeks, and I think that they have been peculiarly fortunate in their selection this afternoon. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success of his efforts to keep out anything of a controversial nature from the speech he has made, but, in spite of obviously trying very hard, he could not get away from the recent vivid recollections of passages which took place upstairs in connection with an entirely different Measure. Indeed, a great deal of his speech was somewhat familiar to those of us who bad the questionable pleasure of sitting day in and day out on that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was not only quoting himself at some length, but he was confusing, I think, a good many of the speeches that were made by those of us who were taking a different point of view upstairs and amalgamating them into the speech to which we have just listened. The fact of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. He and his friends opposite are distressed beyond measure to think that they are to be unable to go to the country and say that the wicked party sitting on this side of the House have not lifted a single finger to prevent the exploitation of the community, or prevent profiteering in the personal needs of the consumers of this country. On the other hand, he has to realise—which he does, as one can see from the kind of speech he has delivered—that the situation is very different from what it was upstairs. There he was in a position to stand on the pinnacle of what I may call co-operation and from that vantage point to bring forward a Bill which was going to affect those portions of the trading community that were not included in
that form of activity, to wit, the cooperative societies.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is not true.

Major DAVIES: Although he has admitted, as my right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill said, that there is at the present moment, so far from being any evidence of a desire to exploit the situation, evidence on all hands of an intention to co-operate and assist in every way, at the same time, this Measure does not make fish of one and flesh of another, but will operate upon traders whether they are in the co-operative system or whether they are not.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Member cannot find a single thing either in connection with the Consumers' Council Bill or in any speech in the course of the Debates on that Bill which would give any credence at all to the unfair statement which he has made about that Bill and the co-operative societies.

Major DAVIES: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I have said anything that is unfair, I withdraw it at once. There is such a thing as a natural reading between the lines, but, if I have made an imputation which he considers unfair, I shall be the first person to withdraw it. In his speech he was putting a great many questions to my right hon. Friend. Among them were a good many rhetorical questions. There is nothing more unfortunate than a rhetorical question, because somebody behind always gives the wrong answer and rather queers the pitch. I suggest that he should confine himself to genuine questions, and then he will not have these series of unsolicited testimonials in reply to his rhetoric. It is ludicrous for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to try and compare the reasons for the Bill to which so much allusion has been made and in respect of which we fought for so long upstairs, and this emergency Measure which has now been brought in. Indeed, it is evident from the closing words of his own speech, because he has had to admit, after denouncing the reason that has been given for bringing in this Measure at all, that there is a possibility of this House very shortly adjourning or dissolving, or whatever it may be. My right hon. Friend said the reason why it was necessary to ask for powers which would not necessitate his coming back to
Parliament was because the emergency might rise when Parliament was not in session. That was denounced in no unmeasured tennis by the right hon. Gentleman in the earlier part of his speech, but, when he reached his peroration, he gave that as his reason why he was not going to advise his friends to divide against the Bill. That shows the unreality of the whole speech to which we have listened, and the artificiality of his effort to show that the Measure is bluff and whitewash and not intended to operate.
I dislike, distrust, and oppose in general the sort of Measures we are bringing in to-day. I am sufficient of a democrat to dislike to give any great powers to any Minister, I do not care to which party lie belongs. But the whole course of the present formation of this [Louse of Commons has simply been based upon Measures, unforeseen in some parts, foreseen in others, which have come upon us in this critical way. It is not the time to split hairs in a matter of this kind. Great broad issues are what we have to bear in mind at the moment. It matters not whether we were pushed from the Gold Standard, or whether we were bumped off it, or whether we slipped off it; the fact remains that we are no longer on the Gold Standard. It matters not at the moment whose fault it was that the Budget gave no promise of being balanced. We are faced with a situation where there is a possibility that the evils of which we are in the middle may be made a thousand times worse by panic getting into the ordinary channels of industry and by the possibility of exploiting or profiteering.
It is no good shutting one's eyes to this possibility, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend who, immediately seeing those possibilities, took the earliest steps to get into touch with those parts of the trading community who would have the greatest power of checking any movement of that sort. That has to be backed up, and an expression of good will or the intention of co-operation, welcome as it is, under present conditions is not sufficient, and consequently we are compelled to ask in this critical state of affairs for powers which at any other time I should be prepared to describe in the same terms as those used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite I say
that considering the issues with which we are faced it is necessary to take that point of view. And in the same way that many of us regretted having to give the vote we did for the Finance Bill, our personal views have to be put aside. Therefore, I trust that the Bill will have a short passage, that it will prove unnecessary to put it into operation actively, and that its very existence on the Statute Book will achieve everything which we hope for it.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: I should like to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade upon the very frank answer he made to my question in relation to the statement that he has not consulted any of the primary producers or any of the responsible food production authorities in this country in relation to the Bill. Representing almost a completely rural constituency, I am bound to say that it reveals the psychology of this House and the general attitude of leaving the countryman's position completely out of any legislation even though he happens to be the primary producer, and, perhaps, the lever of safety in time of war when you are facing famine. Here you have a Bill ostensibly dealing with the main commodities of some 150 constituencies, and I am wondering how many Members representing the rural constituencies will rise in their places to ask that the Government should go down a little lower than consulting just the middle-men in connection with the wholesale government of prices in association with the present crisis.
The position is one that certainly does not merit the hilarity of the House. If food prices rise to the consumer, we who are food producers will be faced with the charge that we are the profiteers. The farmers, the farm workers, the fruit growers, the smallholders are fighting against a situation 10 times more difficult than many hon. Members in this House realise. Here is a Bill ostensibly seeking to remove injustice or to remove the fear of an injustice from the pantries of the people, while at the same time the Government permit a system which forces unjust economic prices and miserably low wages upon the food producers. I cannot think that the Prime Minister has been consulted about this Bill. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade that
question. Has the Prime Minister been consulted?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, and he completely endorses it.

Mr. TAYLOR: I do not. associate myself with those who throw bricks at the Prime Minister. My view is, that our leaders ought to have the confidence of the House and ought to be given credit for good intentions. I say: "Mac, with all thy faults, we love thee still." [HON. MEMBERS: "Come over to this side!"] That is where hon. Members opposite are unable to distinguish between personal regard and principle. We do not easily allow that regard, deep as it may be, to upset our calculations in regard to the matters of national moment with which we are confronted, and the interests of the people we represent. From my personal observation and experience I want to say that this is a mistaken, narrow and unjust Bill. As I listened to the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty, it occurred to me that it is a thundering bad cross between wholesale distributive societies and wholesale co-operative societies.
It fails to go down to the bedrock of the position. It does not get down to the primary producer, who is standing in abject poverty and fear for the morrow while this House is fiddling. We on the country side are going to the devil, and the House does not care. Because we countrymen are so quiet and we have taken our medicine from the time that the Corn Production Act was smashed, we have been drifting and going lower and lower. This Bill seems to destroy the last opportunity of our getting anything like justice in this House for the primary producers and the ploughmen of this country. Representing a country constituency, I should have no hesitation in moving the rejection of the Bill as an inadequate and altogether unworthy attempt to prevent the home producer from getting anything like a square deal.

Mr. CU LVERWELL: May I suggest to the hon. Member that this is a Bill to prevent the exploitation of the consumer, and not to raise agricultural prices.

Mr. TAYLOR: I am endeavouring to make my position plain. The President of the Board of Trade made use of a
very good illustration. He said: "Fancy, buying corn at £100 and having to give £110 the following week." It was my unfortunate experience to go into the Norwich Corn Hall a week or two back. There, I found the producers at the various stands offering their samples of corn, wheat, barley and oats, and they could not get a single offer. They could not get any quotation. The sympathetic merchant said that they had better try a little later, while the scoffing merchant said that it would be better when they had a thundering big tariff on. I would have liked to have seen the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) present, to defend the position of the producers. The plain, blunt fact in regard to this Bill is that the new Government have completely eliminated the agricultural industry from any real consideration in any scheme relating to the prices of foodstuffs.
I am opposed to food taxes, but when I know that the prices of home produce are less than 30 per cent. below the economic cost of production, when the farm workers are receiving a lower wage than any other workers in the country, when unemployment is staring them in the face, and when bankruptcy is confronting the producers and the smallholders, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without protesting against the character of this Bill. Hon. Members opposite, who may smile at the position of things which I have indicated, would do well to go and live on the countryside. If they had anything to do with farming or with the life of the agricultural labourer, they would know that there is a real problem which some Government will have to face, and on far different lines from those adopted in this Bill. I strongly oppose the Bill not because it provides safeguards against profiteering at the expense of the consumer, but because it will do nothing to stop the people who are to be prevented from robbing the consumer, from turning round and taking it out of the producers.
There is no safeguard, no form of control which says that the producer shall be given some protection and the same measure of justice that is to be meted out to' the consumer. Safeguard the consumer's pantry by all means, but at the
same time be just to the primary producers and the farm workers. In protesting against this unjust Bill, I have no hesitation in saying that I fear the Prime Minister has made a great mistake in giving his wholehearted sympathy to it. He stated on one occasion that it was the duty of a Statesman to have his foot in one century and his head in the next. Looking at this Bill, I should think that when he approved of it he must have had his foot in this century and his head in the last century, for he is altogether neglecting the requirements of the most deserving section of the population, and I protest against this neglect of an honourable industry.

Major NATHAN: The public have been reassured by the statement of the President. of the Board of Trade, which will reinforce their own observations hitherto, that, so far there has been no exploitation of the public. The introduction of this Bill leads me to conclude that the President of the Board of Trade anticipates that there will be such exploitation. From that point of view, I cannot help feeling that the public will look back with regret upon the events of the past few months, that the Consumers' Council Bill of 1930 and the rather emasculated Bill which was introduced in the present year did not receive the support of the President of the Board of Trade, which one would have thought to be a necessary precedent for the introduction of this Bill. The Bill seems to beg a great deal of the question with which we are confronted. The President of the Board of Trade made it clear, as the terms of the Bill make it clear, that the Bill is aimed at preventing an undue raising of prices. It is on record in the reports presented to this House by the Central Committee on Profiteering in 1919, reinforced by the then Food Controller, a member of the then Labour party, that any measures directed to the prevention of profiteering are likely to be useless. Experience shows that to be the case.
Although I shall support the Bill, because I believe that every effort should be made to strengthen public confidence as to the action the Government are prepared to take to prevent exploitation, the
aim of the Government at this stage should not be so much directed to attempting to prevent profiteering and the undue raising of prices, as to face up to the problem with which the country is likely to be confronted in the, not very distant future, namely, the rise of prices. The use of the qualifying epithet, the "undue" raising of prices, deprives the Bill of a good deal of the value which it might otherwise have. I believe the Government have underrated the nature and the gravity of the crisis in which the nation finds itself. Their proper course would have been not to introduce a limited Bill of this kind, which I believe will, in practice, be found to be almost worthless, but to have taken powers under the Emergency Powers Act to declare what there is, namely, a national emergency, or they should have got powers to declare a national emergency, and to have dealt with the facts of each day as the facts might demand. Those most necessary steps the Government will have to take.
I view with great alarm the prospect that Parliament is likely to be in vacation or in dissolution for a, period which will prevent the Government from doing that which is really urgent. The step which the Government is likely to have to take at short notice is to proclaim a state of emergency and to make regulations which will not merely enable them to control the undue raising of prices but to exercise an influence over the whole range of prices, and possibly take upon themselves the responsibility of stating what the prices shall be, or what prices shall be raised and what shall not be raised. This Bill seems to have very little relation to the problem which confronts the nation. I hope that the spokesman who is to reply for the Government will make clear what plans the Government really have for dealing with the really vital and immediate problem that may arise at any moment, how to deal with prices.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. STRAUSS: One cannot help supporting a Bill, however half-hearted one may consider it to be, which attempts to stop, even in the smallest way, profiteering in present circumstances. But it is obvious that the provisions of this Measure are totally inadequate to deal with the emergency in which we are likely to find ourselves dur-
ing the next six months. I desire to ask one or two questions of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The Bill seeks to do two things, first, to check profiteering and, secondly, to prevent a shortage of commodities. In regard to the question of profiteering, let me put this question. Suppose it was found that the charges by London retailers were excessive and there was an attempt to issue an order laying down maximum prices, how would the hon. and gallant Member proceed to do it? Obviously, in the West End of London prices which may be justified by higher rents, etc., are very much more than those which could justifiably be asked in the East End. Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered the possibility of laying down maximum prices for different parts of London?

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to-

Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931.

Orders of the Day — FOODSTUFFS (PREVENTION OF EXPLOITATION) BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. STRAUSS: I was asking the Parliamentary Secretary if he could tell us how it is possible to fix maximum prices for London whereby traders in the West End may be able to continue to deal at fair prices for that area and yet retailers in the poorer districts not encouraged to charge unreasonable and outrageous prices to their customers? I shall be glad if he can give me any indication as to what the Board of Trade propose to do in that respect. By far the most important part of the Bill is the attempt to prevent a shortage of foodstuffs. As I listened to the President of the Board of Trade it seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman did not consider the situation as serious as in my opinion it might well develop before the winter is out. I put a question to him as to whether
the Board of Trade were taking powers to purchase foodstuffs when necessary and his answer was that further legislation would be necessary to do that, and that a Financial Resolution would have to be brought before the House. As the House may not be called together again for some months the Government, therefore, have now no power to deal in foodstuffs. But the President of the Board of Trade said that they had ample power because they would be able to divert foodstuffs in the proper direction; but how is it possible to divert foodstuffs which are not there? That is a situation which might well arise if there is a severe rise in prices or wide fluctuations in the exchanges. There might be a real difficulty in importing commodities.
Suppose that in a particular district the big retail traders came to the conclusion that the prices charged were unreasonable, that they would not trade at those prices and, therefore, did not buy goods to retail in their district. In that case a shortage would occur, and unless the Government have power to sell the goods themselves it seems to me that they are unable to do anything of any real use. If the Government had power to set up shops themselves, if necessary, and retail goods is would be an invaluable weapon in case any shortage might occur. This, I believe, was what the French Government did when they were faced with a shortage, they set up shops and actually retailed goods in order to combat an unreasonable rise in prices. Let me put to him something which I hope will not occur but which may occur during the next few months. If the exchanges continues to be unstable, if their fluctuations are such as to make international trade difficult and to dislocate the food trade between this country and other countries, it is probable that importers will say that they are unwilling to import their normal quantities of food because the risks would be such as might involve them in a severe loss. They might refuse on perfectly good grounds to involve themselves in contracts which would cause a loss. What is the Government going to do in those circumstances?
I believe that we import something like two-thirds of our foodstuffs. Any dislocation of our imports might have a very
serious effect on. the food position in this country. It is no use the Government saying, "Oh, we can divert foodstuffs," if there are no foodstuffs there to be diverted. I suggest that if the Bill is to deal with a situation which might arise it is essential that the Board of Trade should take powers not only to sell in this country, but to buy foodstuffs, and more particularly to import foodstuffs, should occasion arise. Only recently we read of a barter of wheat and coffee between the United States and a South American State, and the transaction was doubtless profitable to both sides. Before the Session ends the Government should secure powers that will enable them to take advantage of such a possibility as that. The President of the Board of Trade said that he did not want to interrupt the normal flow of trade. That may be so, but suppose that the normal flow of trade is interrupted. Suppose that through world forces it is interrupted. It is then the duty of the Government to step into the breach and to import goods where necessary, as the Government did during the War.
I want to pub another point. This winter may be a very ugly one. The number of unemployed will be largely increased. There have been cuts in the unemployment benefit. There will be a rise in prices. If, on top of all that, there is a shortage of food, it is no use shutting one's eyes to the fact that there might be serious outbreaks of violence, the end of which no one can foresee. There is nothing more likely to create that spirit or to aggravate it than a suspicion—it may be no more —that what foodstuffs are available are obtainable by the wealthy, while the poor have to go without. I suggest the consideration now, before such an occurrence takes place, of a detailed rationing system to allay any such suspicion. I fervently hope that the necessity for introducing any such drastic step as that will not arise, but in times of crisis panic and fear are easily aroused, and they only make things more difficult. There is nothing more likely to prevent panic and fear arising than the knowledge that the Government are fully prepared with plans to cope with the situation. I suggest, therefore, that not only should the Government make full and most detailed preparations, but that the people should know that those plans
are ready and that the Government are willing to use them when necessary.
I know that it is contrary to the principles of the party opposite for the State itself to trade. During the last great national crisis those principles were allowed to lie dormant. The State then found it necessary to trade itself, because it could not rely on private enterprise to carry us through an emergency. The present situation may develop into one just as serious as the last. It may be even more serious, because tempers are not as sweets as they were then. Failure to take every possible step to deal with any situation that might arise, failure to safeguard with complete adequacy the foodstuffs of the people, might endanger the State every bit as much now as in 1914.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken on the fact that he has not followed the line of his right hon. Friend who spoke front the Opposition Front Bench. Evidently the hon. Member is satisfied that this Bill is desirable, and he would like to see in it even more drastic powers than it contains. I assure him that he need not worry. Evidently he is like the fat boy who tried to frighten people about something that was not likely to happen. The hon. Member talked about the chances of a scarcity of foodstuffs in this country. I think he can rest assured that the President of the Board of Trade has taken full account of all that may happen during the next 12 months at any rate. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the President of the Board of Trade, immediately he knew that we were to be faced with the difficulty of going off the Gold Standard, took steps to protect the consuming public of this country, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the steps that he did take. I congratulate him on the fact that he went to the real sources of supply in this country, and when all is said and done it was necessary to go to the real sources of supply, namely, the people who control the imports of foodstuffs and those who control the great wholesale markets of the country.
I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman received from them offers of cooperation that were sincere and genuine. We have had evidence of that in the fact that the markets have not fluctuated
during the last few weeks. Then the great retail trade organisations in this country came forward and offered to assist the right hon. Gentleman in every way possible. They stated clearly that they were not going to look for replacement value for their own stock. Although I agree with what an eminent accountant said to the right hon. Gentleman, that it was within the rights of traders to ask for replacement value, still these people did not do anything of the kind. If the boot were on the other leg and prices began to fall it would be no use the retailer expecting to get the price that he paid for goods. But these people came forward and said "We realise that in a time like this it is up to every citizen to do his duty, and to do it right well," and they offered their services. I am glad that the right lion. Gentleman accepted them.
As to an interview that has been referred to, and the question of dealing through various organisations, the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) wanted to know what the President of the Board of Trade meant. What he meant was simply this: He realised that it was far better to go to the organisation than to individuals on questions of supplies and prices, quite apart from this Bill. Of course, we were going to have a little storm in a teacup about the co-operative societies, but even the right hon. Gentleman, who told the co-operative people that now he was not in the Cabinet he regretted that he could not represent them inside but could represent them outside-even he had to change that statement about the cooperators not being consulted, for the President of the Board of Trade very sensibly has consulted all the trading interests concerned, and has got an assurance from them that they will play the game by the people of this country; and he has achieved something far better than the threatening methods that the right hon. Member for Hillsborough wanted the House to agree to when he brought forward the Consumers' Council Bill in the last Session of Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Hillsborough wanted to know what I, who have stated repeatedly in this House that I represent the retail traders, thought about this Bill. I say that we welcome the Bill. We have
nothing to fear. We are going to play the game. I will state why we objected to the Consumers' Council Bill. In the first place there was no national emergency when the Consumers' Council Bill was brought forward. There was no reason to supose that there was likely to be any profiteering. In fact prices were tumbling down and many small shopkeepers could not make a living. It was the irritating Clauses in the Consumers' Council Bill that were objected to, the methods of inquisition and the hauling up before a committee. A committee of whom? People representing other interests in the retail trade, who were to sit in judgment on their fellow-traders. There is nothing of that kind in the present Bill. We as traders realise that we are faced with a national emergency. We are prepared to play our part with the rest of the community in seeing the thing through. We are not afraid of this Bill or of any other Bill, because we are not out in any way to profiteer at the expense of the community. We realise that it is necessary that the Government should have power to deal with interests that we, as retailers, cannot control.
The message that we took to the President of the Board of Trade was that as long as wholesale prices remain as they are our retail prices will remain the same, but that if the wholesale prices are increased through no fault of ours we shall be bound to charge that little extra. Even then the traders gave a pledge that they would not charge any extra profit on sales. If the great cooperative movement followed the example of the organised retailers of the country we should have nothing to fear for the future. We have heard the illustration about soap. This Bill does not deal at all with raw materials. It deals with the goods that the retailer has to handle. If it were a Bill dealing entirely with raw materials there might be something in the soap question. I know that the right hon. Member for Hillsborough wanted a good advertisement for cooperative soap. Why should he worry about what the private trader does? If the co-operators can sell more cheaply than the private trader they will soon put the private trader out of business. The fact is simply that they cannot do it. They cannot even beat the little street corner shop. To talk about
having to strengthen this position and that position because of the chances of profiteering by some little corner shop- keeper, is absolute nonsense. If the co- operators were the powerful organisation that they presume to be they ought to be able to do great things. They have no Income Tax to pay anyhow. They can beat the retailers any time if their organisation is right. But even the small retailers in their own little way can still beat these great societies in selling prices. If the co-operators play the game the retailers are prepared to play the game, and there will be no need to put this Bill into operation.

Mr. WALLACE: The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has given the House a good many assurances. As I listened to him, I formed the impression that he must have a good deal of information and, speaking as an ordinary Member of this House, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade is going to pass on to us some further information on this subject. There may be no scarcity at the moment, but judging by this Bill, it is possible that there may be a shortage. The assurances of the hon. Member for Grimsby have not made this Bill unnecessary and have not removed that threat of a shortage. He was pleased to refer to the Consumers' Council Bill and to say that there was no justification for it because there was, at that time, no emergency. My experience goes to show that there are some people in this country who are living in a state of emergency all the time.
I have often heard it said that the gap between wholesale and retail prices is too wide. The hon. Member for Grimsby says that as long as there is no increase in the wholesale prices he gives the House the assurance—he gives it—that there will be no increase in retail prices. There are those who believe that the Government would have shown more courage in dealing with this situation if they had had the temerity to introduce a proposal to reduce retail prices in the same way as they have reduced wages, but that is an issue which they dare not face. Reference has been made in the Bill, and by the President of the Board of Trade to unreasonable prices hut no indication has been given of what prices are to be regarded as unreasonable. Is 50 per cent. on the existing retail price
to be regarded as unreasonable? If wages are to be reduced, is the unreasonable price to be related to wages? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give the House some information on that point.
I understood the President of the Board of Trade to refer to the wholesale traders who are to co-operate with him in preventing the charging of unreasonable prices but he gave no information as to what kind of organisation has been or is to he set up and I think that the House ought to have such information. A few days ago this House was engaged in reducing wages. Now we have a Bill before us to prevent an unreasonable rise in prices. My criticism of this proposal is that it is quite inadequate. It says nothing about clothes, about hoots, about rents. One might almost believe that hon. Members in certain parts of this House do not know what has been happening in this country. Are they aware that there are workers to-day giving three days of their labour every week in order to pay house rent? In every city in the Kingdom there are houses with controlled rents of about 10s, a week and the decontrolled rents are 18s. and even 20s. per week. In my own constituency of Fast Walthamstow are cottages for which the controlled rent charged is 9s. 6d. per week and the decontrolled rent is 25s. a week. Is that an emergency? What have the Government to say about that? Nothing at all. They do not even propose to stop the process of decontrolling houses.
Hon. Members on this side have been criticised for painting the picture in gloomy colours but what has been said is not exaggeration. In my judgment, and I do not set my judgment up before that of any other Member, there is one factor in this situation which is going to create trouble in this country and that is the unjustified and exorbitant rents which are now being charged for decontrolled houses. The Government would do well to consider that problem even before the rising of the House. In the ease of the Civil Service, for example, thousands of men who are supposed to have good positions because their employment is permanent—the low wages are permanent too—are looking upon the situation now from a very different point of view from that which they took three
or four months ago. Hon. Members will have to understand that men and women cannot go on every week undergoing this strain of trying to make ends meet. I beg of the Government to do something on the question of rents. If they faced up to that problem some of us here would have greater belief in the sincerity of hon. Members opposite.
I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Grimsby talk about those who control our imports and exports. I am glad to know that there are such powers in this country exercising such control. I think, however, that those powers ought to be exercised by a public body and not by private persons. I am glad to have the hon. Member's admission. I was interested also to hear the President of the Board of Trade say, "Of course we shall make use of the Food Council and of those gentlemen who had experience during the War of price control." How very different is that statement from the sentiments expressed in the Committee Room when we were considering the Consumers' Council Bill. Am I wrong when I say to hon. Members opposite that some of them for the last two years have been telling the House that a crisis was coming. Newspapers have repeatedly, and hon. Members opposite have repeatedly warned the country, but the Consumers' Council Bill was opposed by hon. Members opposite in every possible way.
I am new to this House. I hope I shall never be a politician, but if there is one thing which has sickened me of the procedure of this House and of the insincerity which is behind the conduct of public business in this House it is listening day after day and week after week to men who are supposed to have a sense of responsibility, wasting time. The hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culver-well) smiles. He may well smile to think of the public money and the public time which was wasted while a serious proposal such as the Consumers' Council Bill was under consideration-when days were occupied in playing with words. It is no wonder that millions outside are just about sick of the House of Commons. It is time that there was a change and it is the people outside of this House who have to make the change and who have to sweep out of this place some of the people who come here to amuse themselves.

Mr. CULVERWELL: What are you doing?

Mr. WALLACE: I hope I am serving the people of this country. I will say this, and the hon. Member cannot deny it. He has never known me to waste a single minute of time in this House or in Committee upstairs, and he cannot say the same for himself. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty say that Amendments would be proposed to this Bill. The Government would do better if they withdrew this Bill and took over the Consumers' Council Bill and applied it to this situation. The President of the Board of Trade talks about an emergency and suggests that all will be normal again by March next. It is nonsense for any man in this House to give such assurance as that. There is no single Member here who can say with any degree of certainty that this emergency will have passed by March next. We should all like to think that it would have passed by then, but it is impossible to give any such assurance and it would be much better to have a well thought-out Bill, which has already been approved by the House of Commons, like the Consumers' Council Bill applied to the present situation. There is one other reason for taking that course. Hon. Members opposite hope to apply Protection or tariffs. There is no purpose in applying tariffs unless they increase prices, and that is another strong reason for applying the Consumers' Council Bill to a situation which will be aggravated if hon. Members opposite have their way.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. Wallace) wishes to have this Bill withdrawn and the Consumers' Council Bill put in its place, but there is no parallel whatever between the emergency measures which are proposed in this Bill, and the proposals of the Consumers' Council Bill. The Consumers' Council Bill proposed to deal not only with food and drink, but also with clothing and other commodities of general use. In fact, its range covered one-half the national expenditure. Therefore there is no comparison, either with this Bill or with the reason why this Bill is being introduced. It may be that, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite the Consumers' Council Bill would have been an excellent Measure in
ordinary times and in the ordinary course of trade, but the late President of the Board of Trade himself admitted that it could only apply to great staple commodities and not to the enormous range of articles which it proposed to include. It was quite impossible for a Bill of that kind to be made to operate with any degree of fairness.
This Bill is being brought in to meet a national emergency. Hon. Members opposite are inclined, even to-day, to imagine that there is no national emergency. My right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill told the House that he had already, by co-operation with the great wholesalers and retailers in this country, prevented any rise in prices. The late First Lord of the Admiralty rather scoffed at the good faith of these great wholesalers and retailers. I think that was reprehensible and a rather cheap thing to do. It is on the good faith and good will of the nation as a whole and on the active co-operation of all that we shall eventually, by means of this Measure and other Measures to be brought in, get through our troubles.
The wholesalers and the retailers at the outset have played a very important part. Had they not given their co-operation I have no doubt that prices would have risen already. Therefore the country owes them a debt of gratitude. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may disagree with me but I am speaking what I feel in this matter. There is no reason to doubt that those who have acted in that manner will continue to do so. If they do not, if unreasonable prices are charged, then it will be necessary to have this Bill so that those unreasonable prices may be checked. I hope and believe that both wholesalers and retailers will continue in the attitude which they have adopted at the outset. If they do not, if there is riot good will and good faith throughout the country to meet the crisis through which we are passing, then indeed we shall be in a very bad way. I recognise the necessity for this Bill, but I hope most sincerely that it will not have to be put into operation.

Mr. HOFFMAN: The President of the Board of Trade, when introducing the Bill, reminded me of one of the most important persons in a modern store.
He is immaculately dressed, he has a suave manner, and he has gentle flourishes. The most important person in a modern store is the window-dresser, and the right hon. Gentleman reminded me every bit of a window-dresser. During the course of the Consumers' Council Bill upstairs, and in this House, I had to remark—and I was twitted for it over and over again both by the right hon. Gentleman and others—that I thought that that Bill in practice would only apply to one or two main articles. This Bill will not apply to any. What are the principal words in the Bill? They are "unreasonable prices" and "exploitation of the present circumstances." There is no tradesman who will want to exploit unduly the present circumstances. I do not think for a moment that there is a single tradesman, small or large, who will want to take advantage of the present circumstances by increasing his prices unnecessarily.
This Bill only sets out to deal with an unnecessary situation, and it hopes to hide from the voters the fact that prices are bound to go up—necessarily, not unnecessarily. With every fall in the price of the pound, as we are a very big importing nation, up must go the price of those goods that are imported, and as they are imported and charged to the consumer, then the retailer will charge his usual percentage—25 per cent., 12k per cent., 33 per cent.—upon selling price, which means 50 per cent. upon cost. He will charge those prices upon the increased wholesale price, and there will be in consequence a greater profit to the trader for every individual transaction. The traders, it is said, agree with this Bill. Of course, they do. The President of the Board of Trade has consulted the wholesalers and the retailers, and the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), who represents in this House a large number of small traders, says, "We welcome this Bill. We do not mind it at all. It is not going to hurt us."

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) did not say that. He said that the small retailers would not take advantage of the situation.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Exactly, just as during the War the traders waited upon
the Board of Trade—I was in close touch with the matter at that time—and they said, "This is what we usually charge as our percentage, in the case of a draper 33⅓ per cent., and that is what our profit is, and all that we shall continue to do will be to charge 33⅓ per cent." With every rise in the wholesale price, his profit upon the individual transaction increased; indeed, so enormous were the profits made, that we even had the Excess Profits Duty put on, and even then the traders of the country did enormously well. There is not even the most innocent young girl behind the counter who does not understand the position. My wife was doing some shopping this week-end, and she asked in a local store, "What is the price of those apples?" The young lady said, "3½d. a 1b." My wife said, "I shall not pay 3½d. a 1b. for measly apples like that." "Oh," said the young lady, with a toss of her head, "you will be glad to pay 8d. presently if the Gold Standard keeps going up."

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: She was anticipating a Socialist victory!

Mr. HOFFMAN: She knew what was inevitable, namely, that prices were bound to go up. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that prices are bound to go up, and this Bill is a piece of window-dressing, of camouflage, so that he can go to the electors presently and say, "We are protecting you against any unnecessary increase of prices." Not a word will be said about the inevitable rise of prices because of the devaluation of the pound. My view is that the Government are not taking anywhere near the powers that they ought to take under the Bill. This is, I repeat, merely a piece of window-dressing. The powers that ought to be taken are those that will deal with circumstances that are likely to affect this country from world causes. We have had to devalue the pound, not because the Treasury wanted it, not because the financiers and the banking people and the bondholders wanted it, but because of world causes, and I want to stress the point, as my hon. Friends have already done, that it looks very much as though we are going to get a collapse of the exchanges all round.
Germany has already started to take steps to control the whole of her internal money policy, to try to save the position, but, honestly, there is not a single person looking around the world to-day, with a discerning eye at all, who can hope that we are going to get through this winter without immense difficulties. If that is so, we may be driven to barter. Indeed, I quite visualise—and I thought, when I first caught sight of this Bill, that it was something of the sort—that the right hon. Gentleman had that in mind when he spoke about the need for dealing with the situation caused by shortages. He shakes his head, but really we may reach that situation before the winter is out, and 1 would like to feel that the Government had taken a wider view of the difficulties which may confront the country. I hope we have had quite enough of panic. We have had enough of it for the last three or four weeks, and I hope we shall not take measures again when it is almost too late and in a panic.
I would much rather see the right hon. Gentleman asking this House to give him powers to deal with any state of emergency that may arise, especially in connection with foodstuffs. I should feel much safer if he would. I do not mind giving him the powers. What I resent is that he should ask for a simulacrum of power. This is but the shadow of power, and I would much rather he came to this House and frankly said, "We may be in a difficulty. The world is in a state bordering on chaos, and anything may happen, and in order to be on the safe side, we would like the House to arm us with powers to deal with the whole of the food situation, both in regard to bulk purchase and bulk exchange, and even in regard to rationing." I feel sure that those steps will eventually have to be taken. I am not saying this from any pessimistic point of view. Temperamentally, I am an optimist. [Laughter.] I am, temperamentally, but T am looking the facts in the face, and I am bound to say that I think they are very grave and that I should feel very much safer if the right hon. Gentleman had asked us for very much wider powers.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I rise for the purpose of addressing a number of questions to the. Parliamentary Secretary to
the Board of Trade, who, I understand, will reply for the Government at the end of the Debate. There will be general agreement on the necessity of doing something to deal with the situation which will almost certainly arise during the coming winter. My view about that situation—I am not quite so optimistic as the hon. Member who preceded me— is that this winter will see a definitely revolutionary situation in Britain. I believe that this winter will precipitate the class struggle in a more acute form than this country has yet known, and in those circumstances clearly the problem of food supplies and of preventing extortionate prices for food supplies becomes of first-class importance from the point of view of this House.
There is another reason why I think the situation will be as serious as I suggest. It is common ground that the great problem confronting the capitalist system of Britain is the problem of over-coming the adverse balance of trade. To a certain extent the departure from the Gold Standard helps in that direction, because it constitutes, in effect, a tariff upon imports and a bounty for exports, but none of us will be prepared to say that the departure from the Gold Standard alone is so far going to solve the adverse balance of trade problem as to make the situation this winter any-thing but a very difficult one from a national point of view and if both these things are correct, then obviously there is great need for dealing with the problem of shortages of supplies before those shortages and rising prices assume their most acute form.
6.0 p.m.
I share the view expressed by the hon. Member who preceded me, that before the winter is up we shall see Britain on ration cards. I believe that in the coming weeks we are going to see a very sharp upward movement, in prices. Many hon. Members do not believe that. Many hon. Members say that, in the same way as there has been a tremendous lag in the past between the fall of wholesale prices and the fall of retail prices, so, when wholesale prices rise, there will be a corresponding lag before they affect retail, prices in anything like the same way. I see no ground for that optimism, and I agree with everybody who has spoken so far in saying that there is an
emergency to be faced. The Opposition have announced their attitude to the Bill. My job is to announce the attitude of my party. My party is the one party in the House which is not divided from top to bottom, but before I can announce its attitude, I need to address a number of questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I find great difficulty in understanding the Bill. It is at one and the same time narrow and very wide—

Mr. ED E: Like your party.

Mr. BROWN: I know nothing about the Government or their Bills which resembles ray party. If there were anything I should be happier about the crisis in the coming winter, This Bill, too, is at once very modest and very ambitious. I want to find out where we have to place the emphasis in dealing with the Bill. It begins by saying:
If it appears to the Board of Trade that by reason of the action of ally persons in exploiting the present financial situation.
There may be a shortage in commodities or a rise in prices—then the Board of Trade can do something. It can only do something, however, if the shortage or the rise in prices arises from the action of any person in exploiting the present financial situation. What does that phrase mean? Exploitation goes on quite apart from the present financial situation. It is a normal feature of the capitalist system, and, if the Government can only act under this Bill, they can prove that the shortage or the rise in prices is the direct result of the action of some person in exploiting the present financial situation, the Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. The Bill goes on to say:
there is, or is likely to arise in Great Britain or in any part thereof, any shortage of or any unreasonable increase in the price of any article of food or drink of general consumption, the Board of Trade, may by regulation make such provision as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of remedying or preventing that shortage or increase in price.
I am not sure that this is not the most revolutionary Bill which has ever been introduced into the House of Commons. It is either that, or it is humbug. If the Parliamentary Secretary exercises the powers which it gives, he will become more famous than his famous father.
What are the factors that create shortage? Under this Bill the President of the Board of Trade is given power to deal with them all. He may be able to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) who thinks that the private ownership of land is the fundamental cause of shortage, and I agree with him. Under this Bill, the President of the Board of Trade may nationalise the land. In those circumstances, he will clearly supersede the Minister of Agriculture. He can do more. The operation of the tithes system is a factor in putting farms out of cultivation and creating a shortage. The Bill gives the Government power to deal with any factor that creates a shortage, so we may see the President of the Board of Trade abolishing the tithes system and thereby superseding the chief Ecclesiastical Commissioner.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Gentleman is going a little beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. BROWN: I am seriously arguing my point, and, if I am doing it by the weapon of ridicule, that weapon is a legitimate one. I am seriously arguing that this Bill gives the President of the Board of Trade power by regulations to make such provisions as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of remedying or preventing a shortage in any article of food.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the whole of the Clause is governed by the words:
by reason of the action of any persons in exploiting the present financial situation.

Mr. BROWN: The farmers believe that the Church is exploiting the present situation. The hon. Member for Burslem believes that the landowners are exploiting the present situation—

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members who are out of order usually say that they are seriously arguing. The hon. Member is clearly out of order.

Mr. BROWN: One of the points of criticism addressed by the Opposition to this Bill is that while the Consumers' Council Bill specifically limited the powers of the President of the Board of Trade to the setting up of machinery for
preventing undue prices, this Bill goes much further. It gives almost unlimited powers to the President of the Board of Trade if the English of it has any value at all. I have often remarked that in this House English very often does not mean what it says, but, if English means anything at all, this Bill gives unlimited and revolutionary powers to the President of the Board of Trade to do what he likes. Indeed, I am not sure whether under Clause 2 it does not give him power to establish a dictatorship in Great Britain. That Clause says:
Regulations made under this Section may, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision confer or impose on any person or body of persons such powers and duties as the Board of Trade may consider necessary or expedient for effecting the purpose aforesaid.
The Bill will therefore give the President power to appoint somebody to do all that I have said is possible under Clause 1. If he exercises that power to appoint me, all will be well, but, owing to the formidable competition from legal and other gentlemen opposite, I cannot entertain the hope that he really intends to appoint me. I am suspicious of the kind of person he will appoint, because, if I know him aright, I know that the person he will appoint is the kind of person who will do nothing serious to hold the situation this winter, because he will not be able to act in defiance of the capitalistic interests for which the right hon. Gentleman and his party stand. I am encouraged in the belief that the right hon. Gentleman does not really intend to do anything by the amazingly loose phraseology of the later parts of the Bill. I am very well acquainted with the Civil Service, which is trained in the use of English, and when I see a Bill like this in terms so vague and ambiguous, I know that it is not the work of the Civil Service, but the work of the Minister.
The proof that the Government do not intend to do anything serious is in the extreme vagueness of the language dealing with trial by courts of summary jurisdiction. When you are dealing with some poor wretch of a shopkeeper in a back street you can haul him in front of a court of summary jurisdiction, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) that it is not the little street-corner shopkeeper who is
the villain of this piece, even if he does put his normal 33⅓ per cent. on the enhanced price. The fellow who is responsible at bottom is the fellow who creates the enhanced price in the first instance. Those who are responsible are the anonymous speculators on the Stock Exchange, people who buy and sell a cargo of wheat a dozen times over on its voyage from New York to Liverpool and do not figure in the transactions. We know that wheat changes hands a dozen times very often between leaving New York and reaching Liverpool. Which of the dozen people are you going to prosecute if the price of wheat goes up unreasonably?
Under this Bill the Stock Exchange speculator is as safe as houses. What about the limited liability companies? Whom are you to prosecute there? The secretary, who is a paid servant of the organisation, or the chairman, or the members of the board of directors? In the case of the multiple shop, are you going to prosecute Joe Lyons, or the manager of some little provincial shop of Joe Lyons? The Bill leaves the big man safe and only exposes the little man to the danger of disciplinary action. There is historical precedent for the Bill in the Measure recently introduced in the German Parliament. That enables persons who intensify difficulties in Germany be brought before Courts of summary jurisdiction. It is drafted in terms very similar to the terms of this Bill, and it is designed for precisely the same purpose. Under that Measure some poor little shopkeeper is brought before a Court of summary jurisdiction and sent to "quod," but the big criminals are perfectly safe, although many of them are well known. Finally, I come to the most revealing provision of this amazing Bill—the provision which says:
This Act shall cease to have effect on the expiration of six months from the passing thereof.
A lovely Clause! What does it mean? Is there a man on that Front Bench who believes that the crisis which is now paralysing British capitalism will be over within six months from the date of the passing of this Bill? A massive silence is the reply! Do they believe the crisis will be past by then? If they do, let them say so, and the country will rock with laughter at the naiveté of such a conception. If they do not believe it
will be over in six months, why limit the operation of this Bill to six months? Is it because six months is about the required time in which to achieve an agreed formula and carry through the necessary action?
I submit that this is not a Bill for the protection of the community from exploitation, not a Bill to save poor men from becoming poorer still, not a Bill to save the unemployed, who have already experienced two cuts. They have had the cut arising from the decline from the Gold Standard and a cut in unemployment pay, and they are to have a third cut in the exploitation of the situation. It is not a Bill to save civil servants, teachers, policemen, soldiers or sailors from increased prices. It is a Bill to enable this motley crew, this amazing combination of renegade Socialists, dubious Portuguese, and crusted Conservatives to face a General Election and to be in a position to say "We are not friends of the exploiter; look at the Bill we have passed." When somebody interrupted from this side to ask whether the Prime Minister approved of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that it had been submitted to him, and that he had approved of it. I believe it. I can imagine nothing more characteristic of the late Prime Minister's methods—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, the present Prime Minister or the late Socialist Prime Minister, in inverted commas. I can imagine nothing more characteristic of his combination of sitting on the fence behind a facade of words—[interruption.] I am told that I am mixing my metaphors. I would sooner do that than have mixed the contents of this Bill. Whatever else I have done in this House I have never produced a brew like this. The present Prime Minister is a master in the art of using language to conceal thought, and this is a first-class example of the art at its best. The purpose of the Bill is to provide the Members of the Government with some kind of shield from the charge they are going to meet that they are not a National Government; that they are not the people's Government, but that they are a "Committee of Bankers' Safety." By the grace of God, if they go to an election within a few weeks from now the country will say decisively what it thinks of their government and the Bill they have introduced.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Major Lloyd George): I am sure the House will not expect me to follow the last speaker into the many courses which he has pursued. On the other hand, I can congratulate him on the fact that when he goes to his next party meeting he will have very little difficulty in explaining the stand he took against this Bill. He asked one or two questions about the meaning of words in the English language. I do not agree with him over the difficulties he tried to raise, and I am perfectly certain that it was not seriously thought for one moment that the interpretations he was putting on those words would be those which would be adopted by any responsible person.
I will try to reply to the questions which have been raised in the Debate. In some ways it has been an extraordinary Debate, because some speeches have stated that the Bill is far too drastic, and others have said that it is purely window-dressing. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hoffman) referred in very complimentary terms to my right hon. Friend the President, and stated that he would make a first-class window-dresser. Judging by the speech of the hon. Gentleman for the Central Division of Sheffield his tone was so pessimistic throughout that I do not think he would have been capable of making a good window-dressing speech. With reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for the Hillsborough Division of Sheffield (Mr. Alexander), I cannot follow him into all his exchanges with my right hon. Friend regarding the Consumers' Council Bill. Whatever he may have to say about the fate of his child he cannot blame me for it; and, therefore, I will pass on to his criticisms of the Bill.
First I would like to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the reason for the Bill. He stated that it was introduced only because this Government had failed in their object of stabilising the pound. As a matter of fact, the reason for the introduction of the Bill is that we have gone off the Gold Standard, and is to prevent any exploitation that may follow from that. He suggested that we should have an inquiry, but an inquiry takes time and he knows as well as anybody in this House that prices alter from week to week, and the necessity for immediate action is very
obvious at a time when fluctuations take place in prices. He referred with some scoffing to the remark of my right hon. Friend that up to the present "a square deal" had been offered to the public by people responsible for food supplies, and did not agree with the suggestion that purely as a matter of business a firm would be entitled to charge a higher price in order to meet replacement costs.
I will tell the House a story of what happened once in a country where there was rapid depreciation in the currency, and perhaps they will understand the position better. A man bought a ton of nails at 20s. The currency depreciated, and when he sold them the proceeds of the sale enabled him to buy only 15 cwt. when he gave his next order. The proceeds of the sale of the 15 cwt. enabled him to buy only half-a-ton of nails next time, and when he had sold them he was able to buy only 5 cwt. So it went on, and finally, with the proceeds of the last sale, he was able to buy only one nail, and he drove that into the wall and hanged himself from it. It is obvious that if the value of the pound were to continue to decline one could not blame those who have to replace their stocks for taking the necessary steps to safeguard themselves against further depreciation, but up to the present that has not happened; there have been no increases of any sort in prices where such increases could have been justified.

Mr. ALEXANDER: May I make my position plain? I never argued that up to the moment traders had taken an unfair advantage, but what I did object to was the extraordinary statement that what they had done was to give "more than a square deal," which was what the President said. I say that it is immoral for them to charge more for the goods they have in stock at the moment than is the proper addition to make to the price they paid. They would deal with goods bought subsequently as they purchased them.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry to differ from my right hon. Friend about that. Surely if a man buys an article from abroad for £1, and by the time he has sold it the value of the pound is only 17s. 6d. he could perfectly fairly, in view of the fact that he has to replace his stock, increase his price in order to be able to replace it. That, in itself,
would be a square deal, because he would be doing what he was entitled to do. If the pound went on depreciating, as time passed lie would not be able to buy anything at all. As the seller has not passed on any increase in price, I think the President was quite right in saying it was more than a square deal.

Mr. ALEXANDER: But that is quite contrary to the evidence of the statutory Committee.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: The point that really matters is that they have not increased prices. The right hon. Gentleman asked one or two questions with regard to the present financial situation and wanted us to define what was meant by those words. The present financial situation is the present financial situation which comes to an end as far as this particular Bill is concerned six months from the date of the passing of it. I cannot see what better definition one could get than that winch I have given. The present financial situation is the situation caused by this country going off the Gold Standard. The Bill says that it is to operate for six months only. I cannot see what possible definition there could be which is better than that.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am anxious that the legal position should be made clear. These are very vague words in an Act of Parliament. They will be subject to interpretation in the courts. Does "the present financial situation" apply to the situation on the appointed day or to any part of the period of six months during which the Measure will be in operation?

Major LLOYD GEORGE: I should have thought it applied from the time the Bill became law till the six months were up.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Then we go back to the Gold Standard?

Major LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, no; nobody suggested that. I do not suppose the hon. Member opposite could say when that will happen any more than we could.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Will the basis of calculation be the prices at the date on which the Bill is passed or what was called a reasonable price last week?

Major LLOYD GEORGE: Surely it is obvious that a reasonable price must have regard to the depreciation of sterling. If a man charges more than is reasonable according to the depreciation of sterling we shall know what to do.

Mr. HARDIE: But let us leave out the case of goods which come from abroad. There is the case of the man who would charge 4½d. for a cabbage in Sutton. What is to be done in a case like that? That has nothing to do with the falling exchange.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: I do not see that that has anything to do with this Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: Exactly—the Bill is of no use in such a case.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: The Bill means what it says, and hon. Members opposite are trying to make it mean something totally different. It is a Bill to deal with exploitation caused by the present financial situation. That is exactly what it means, and I do not see how anybody can put any other interpretation upon it. Then I was asked, Who is going to prosecute? The answer is that it will be the Board of Trade. Another question was, Who is to be prosecuted? The answer is whoever is responsible, whether it is a corporation or an individual.

Mr. ALEXANDER: This is rather an important point, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will look into it before the Committee stage. I know that in civil law it is generally held that a company is responsible, but here we are dealing with criminal proceedings.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This is taken straight from the Emergency Powers Act.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Member for the Hillsborough Division went on to say that the whole Bill was pure humbug and bluff, and, after having said that, declared that the President of the Board of Trade had in this Measure gone further than even the late Government had ever intended to do. The right hon. Member cannot have it both ways. One hon. Member referred to the risk incurred by the importers, but the man who sends the stuff across the seas incurs far more risk than the importer. It has been suggested that the Board of Trade may be faced with a shortage, and that it would be necessary to ration food. As a matter of fact, there is no sign of a shortage, and there happens to be a
glut. Consequently, a shortage is not likely to arise. Under these circumstances hon. Members opposite who talk about rationing at the present time are not doing anything which is calculated to allay panic in this country. I think it would be far better to refer to this Bill as one which is intended to meet a position which has not arisen at the present time and which we hope may never arise.
There is no question of a shortage at the present time. Fortunately, a large proportion of the food imported into this country comes from countries which are themselves off the Gold Standard, and therefore there is every reason to hope that there will be no increase of price at all in imported commodities. The hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. Wallace) regretted that no reference to clothes and rent and so on was to be found in this Bill, but the Government thought that it was much more important to tackle the question of our food supplies first, and that is the reason why other articles have not been included.
I have done my best to answer all the questions which have been put to me, and I have tried to cover the ground raised in the speeches of hon. Members opposite. I hope that the House will now agree to the Second Reading of this Bill. While the Government realise that the powers for which they are asking are drastic, we all hope and believe that it may not be necessary to use them. I may say in conclusion that I am certain, should the necessity arise, the Government will use these powers without the slightest hesitation.

Mr. EDE: I wish to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade upon the first speech he has delivered from the Treasury Bench. I am bound, however, to express my dissatisfaction with the answers which the hon. and gallant Member has given to the questions which have been put to him. I notice that the President of the Board of Education is sitting opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on Saturday last week at Wadebridge, said that at the present time a General Election would be autumnal insanity. The point is whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to the election in the padded cell or outside the asylum. We shall not
know which it will be until a few hours hence when the secret may be out. The President of the Board of Trade told the House this afternoon that this Measure has only been brought forward because Members of Parliament will be otherwise engaged than in sitting on these benches.
We have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government do not think that this Bill will be wanted, but that if it is wanted it will be there ready to be used. If it is wanted, then the penalties in it are far too lenient to make it effective unless it is intended merely to apply to small people. This is a subject with which the House has had to deal during the centuries on a great many occasions. For centuries Acts have been passed dealing with forestalling, ingrossing and regrating. This is the most lenient Measure that has ever been proposed for dealing with these gentlemen. In 1350 it was enacted that all forestallers of merchandise should be liable to the forfeiture of their goods and a fine, and, in default of payment, two years' imprisonment. This was strengthened in 1363 by an Act entitled:
Merchants shall not engross merchandises to enhance the price of them, nor use but one sort of merchandise.
In the reign of the saintly Edward VI, we find that the punishment of these offences was:
on the first conviction, two months' imprisonment and forfeitures; on the second half a year's imprisonment and forfeiture of double the value of the goods; and on the third, pillory, forfeiture of all offender's goods and cattle, and imprisonment during the King's pleasure.
If the right hon. Gentleman is going to deal with the people who can turn the present situation to their advantage, as for instance the meat trade which possesses a practical monopoly, something will be wanted far more drastic than a miserable three months' imprisonment or a fine of £100. [interruption.] I wonder how the Secretary for Mines would have dealt with a situation like that? I was going to suggest that if wholesale exploitation is attempted, power to inflict the death penalty ought to be invested in the Minister.
The Secretary for Mines, at a time when he did not anticipate having to shoulder the responsibility of office, said
that unless the question of cutting down unemployment benefit was tactfully handled we should see, during the coming winter, scenes of great social disorder. I know that the hon. Member for Bodimin (Mr. Foot) was sincere when he made that statement, and would not say one thing out of office and another in office, and, consequently, he must be looking to the coming winter with the very gravest misgivings. I do not want to use this Bill and similar measures to excite the wrath of the populace against the traders in back streets when the real villains of the piece may be men of tremendous wealth and power against whom the penalties in this Bill will prove to be a laughing stock. I urge the Government to make this Measure a real Measure by increasing the penalties, and I hope we shall have an assurance that on the very first sign of any effort being made to exploit the present situation this Measure will be put very actively into use. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. Wallace) in urging that this Measure should be extended so as to cover clothes and coal. These materials are just as important as food supplies to those who will be affected by this Measure. In view of the cut in unemployment benefit, and the fall in wages, it is essential that something should be done to prevent the steady rise of rent, especially in decontrolled houses.
I would like to emphasise a point which has been made by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hoffman), who said that we are going to have the very greatest possible difficulty in maintaining the normal supply of food during the coming winter and that we shall find increasing difficulty in getting the food in unless we are prepared to take very drastic steps with regard to State purchase and State control of imports when we have purchased them. I hope that in this Measure—I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a convinced Socialist will be desirous of seeing this Measure strengthened—steps will be taken to make it certain that at the slightest sign of any difficulty occurring in securing any of the essential commodities for this country, powers for State purchase and barter should be vested in the President of the Board of Trade, and I think we should have an assurance that
these powers are going to be used unsparingly in the public interest.
The Prime Minister has assured us that we are in a position almost approaching a state of war. I suggest to the Prime Minister that in these circumstances he should pay another visit to Churt—or the Parliamentary Secretary might have a family council—and obtain from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) some account of the steps taken by him to meet the situation during the War with regard to our food supplies. I hope that the harmony of the Government may not be further disturbed by the President of the Board of Trade under this Bill having to arrest the Minister of Agriculture because none of the steps permitted under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill have been put in force. I think that -the powers under that Measure, if put into force, would have rendered this Bill unnecessary.
I regret that no answer has been given to the question put by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) who asked whether the Government anticipate that the present crisis is going to end six months after the passing of this Bill. Is it considered that the present crisis is something that can be put an end to by an Act of Parlianient? Conservative Speakers' Notes said a fortnight ago that the Conservatives alone bad saved the pound, and that if they had not done so pound notes would have fallen so much in value that they would have been used as spills for lighting pipes and fires. That is what the Conservative party put into the mouths of their speakers in order to disseminate panic. That is the prospect which the party of the President of the Board of Trade holds out to the people of this country during the coming winter. I sincerely hope that this Measure will be so strengthened as to make it of some little use, so that, whether the General Election results—as the country, II am sure, profoundly hopes it will not—in the return of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, or whether it places on those benches people who are determined to see that this situation is not used for the exploitation of the public, during that period we shall at least be safe from the appal-
ling fate which the Conservative party believes is shortly to overtake us.

Mr. LONGDEN: While I fully realise that this Bill is concerned with food prices and shortage, I am none the less sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who replied for the Government did not deal with the matter of rent. Rent is a very important factor in working-Mass budgets. In my own Division, for instance, you will find a family of three, who are living upon 23s. 3d. per week unemployment benefit, paying as much as 10s. for one room. Evidently, if a family has to pay nearly half its income for rent, there is not going to be much left for food, clothing or any other necessaries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also said that there was no need to anticipate a shortage of foodstuffs, because there was abundance in the world; but it does not necessarily follow that, because there is abundance in the world, prices are not going to be unreasonable. We have yet to learn that the suppliers of these commodities, primary or secondary, are ever ready to send prices down to a reasonable level when they can obtain what is really an unreasonable level of prices from the people who need the food.
It appears to me that, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), this Bill is either a gigantic piece of bluff or it is deliberately mistaken in intent and content, and that contention is borne out by some of the passages in the Bill. That there are potential powers—extremely strong powers—in this Bill, no one can deny, but this is what it will mean:
The Board of Trade may by regulation make such provision as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose"—
and so on. Does not that mean, not that action must be taken at a given time, but that the President of the Board of Trade may, if he thinks that at that moment he ought to do so, take action in this way? When we were considering the Consumers' Council Bill upstairs, many things were said on that point. Hon. Members opposite were very much concerned about concentrating dictatorial powers in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade, through his power to appoint a board and the several committees of investigation. The
right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Ashley) told us upstairs, on Tuesday, the 7th July last, that he objected to handing over to the President of the Board of Trade power to examine him on oath. Certainly there is a difference there. You may not be asking for a judicial oath, but you are necessarily forcing some small shopkeeper or other to come before you and explain the reason why he or she is charging a given price at a, given moment for a given article. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, therefore, should wonder why he is going to support a Bill which places such immense potential powers in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade.
I was amazed by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading when he said in effect that had there been no crisis, or, at least, had Parliament been certain of continuing, a Bill of this kind would have been unnecessary. He said that, normally speaking, we should only need a Bill of this kind when we saw unreasonable prices coming upon us—when, as I think was his expression, unreasonable prices were apparent. Surely, there is something strange about a statement like that. The Consumers' Council Bill necessarily assumes that, whether you are in a big crisis like this or the numerous crises of normal days, you must have some power of controlling exploitation by shortage or extortionate prices. Moreover, we are not given the slightest idea as to what the index of the level of prices should be at a given time, nor are we told how a case of need, as the Bill puts it, will be located—whether the case will be handed over to the President of the Board of Trade as exemplifying a very extortionate case, or what will be done. Nobody knows. All that we are told is that unreasonable prices and shortages must be watched. The President of the Board of Trade ought to tell us what a temporary crisis really means. The Chancellor of the Exchequer always taught that, as he knows so well, the working classes are always faced with price and shortage crises, and, whether it is a matter of the Gold Standard or not, that is the situation which Members on this side of the House necessarily have to face.
I am reminded of what was said by the President of the Board of Trade on the Second Reading of the Consumers' Council Bill. He said, criticising the then President of the Board of Trade, that the right hon. Gentleman had said that his Bill was not much good, and he agreed with that, because, without a full-blooded piece of Socialist legislation, you could not control prices. The right hon. Gentleman comes to the House now, in the midst of a crisis, not having anticipated it as we on this side did in the case of the Consumers' Council Bill, and tells us, not that only a full-blooded Socialist Measure would stop exploitation by prices, but that he may interfere and control prices in the meagre fashion that is suggested in the present Bill. Later in his speech on the Second Reading of the Consumers' Council Bill he said this, which is very pertinent to the Bill that is now before us:
Experience proves, and all authorities agree, that, if you control prices at all, you have to control them at every stage from start to finish. That was the Wartime experience, and it has been the experience ever since."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1931; col. 736, Vol. 250.]
He went on to quote Sir William Beveridge, who said that ultimately it became clear that nothing that mattered at all as food for the people could safely be left free of price control. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, although he brings forward a. Bill like this, did admit, in the Debate on the Consumers' Council Bill, that what he is now suggesting cannot be really effected. As was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough, it is clear that there is something very much wrong with this Bill. It suggests a powerful means, through the President of the Board of Trade, for controlling prices and for watching shortages and unreasonable prices generally. We know very well, however, that the disorder of society does not permit anything of the kind, and that, whatever may be the moral view of the shopkeeper, or the middleman, or the wholesaler, or the manufacturer, it is pretty clear that they will get the very best price that the situation will afford.
7.0 p.m.
It was rather amusing to listen -to the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), who is always very much concerned about the small shopkeeper. During the discussions on the Consumers' Council Bill, he was very much concerned about the poor shopkeeper. The co-operative
Members had deliberately designed the Consumers' Council Bill in. order to cripple the poor shopkeeper, who is struggling from day to day. What does this Bill mean if it does not suggest primarily that the poor shopkeeper is to be the butt, the beginning of the investigation, that he must receive an inquisition, an imposition? As we can see from the yards of printed matter, representing many hours wasted upstairs by hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for Grimsby, we were told all the time that our Bill was aimed at the poor shopkeeper, that he would always have to be on the qui vive, that he would always be wondering whether some crafty official was sneaking in by his back door for the purpose of looking at his prices, and asking him his overhead charges and what the return for his efforts was. We got yards of that stuff. It was hardly playing the game. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes along and supports a Bill which means, if the English in it is any true indication, that it is the poor shopkeeper who is going to feel the brunt first and the general consuming masses feel it next.

Mr. MANDER: As one who had the experience, for a number of very agreeable hours during the past slimmer, of listening to the President of the Board of Trade resisting by all his ingenuity and by any argument he could think of any Measure of this kind, it is a source of gratification to me to find him to-day introducing a Measure which I urgently tried to persuade him to support earlier this year. I ant glad his conversion has taken place to this extent and I hope that, if it is necessary to include other articles beside food and drink, such as were included under the Consumers' Council Bill, he will not hesitate to come down and ask permission to include those articles, too. I hope that he will not find it necessary, but I am sure he will not hesitate if the necessity arises. There is one specific point which I would put to the President of the Board of Trade. There is a reference made in the first 'Clause to the present financial situation. That needs defining and explaining. It may be that it refers to going off the Gold Standard which the Government were formed to maintain. On the other hand—and this is what. I want to know—
it may have some reference to some projected plan or policy which it is hoped to pass through this House in November or in the succeeding months. I do not know whether there is any truth in it, but we are told that Parliament is to be dissolved in the near future, that the Government are going to the country either on Protection or on Free Trade or on some hopeless mixture of the two and that, among other things, they will ask permission to impose food taxes on the people of this country.
Suppose the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are in a position—as I know they desire to be—in a few months' time to impose a tax of 10s. a quarter on all wheat coming into this country. Suppose the farmers of this country, contrary to what we have been told, have the audacity to raise their prices 10s. a quarter. We were told that prices should not rise at all, but suppose they do not follow that duty and raise their prices 10s. a quarter, will it be possible to proceed under this Bill against those farmers? It is a matter of enormous importance, certainly to my constituents, who are determined to do everything in their power to resist food taxation such as the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are anxious to impose on the people of this country. If anything of that kind were to arise, it would be necessary to use this Bill to a much greater extent than the right hon. Gentleman has any idea at the present time. It would be a very useful Act in a situation of that sort. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House and the country, before they are asked to record their votes, and to assure the farmers, too, that it will be possible under this Bill to keep down any rise in prices, however high the tariffs imposed on wheat coming into this country. It is an important matter, because my constituents are determined to take every step in the future to resist measures of food taxation which they have resisted now for 99 years in succession.

Mr. G. HARDIE: I should not rise but for the answers I received to the questions I put. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the Bill referred only to prices affected by the fall in the pound outside the British Isles. If
this is to be a Bill to deal with foodstuffs, then we have also got to take into account what is produced in this country. Let me give a simple instance. This morning potatoes in Sutton, where I live, were 2s. 4d. a stone, or 2d. a lb. Is that a reasonable or unreasonable price? I have been doing the shopping on purpose to get first-hand information, and yesterday, too, I visited places where people are growing cabbage and other vegetables for the market. I travelled 18 miles yesterday in order to get firsthand information because I had this Bill in my pocket, and wanted to know what was going to happen to producers in this country. One man was making an extension which he said he was unable to make two months ago. Now that he wanted to make it he was being asked a higher rate of interest for the money he required. Will the President of the Board of Trade tell us if the man who has to pay more interest to the bank is not to be allowed to put it on the price of his goods or will this Bill deal with the man who increases the price at which he lends his money? I know that this is a detail, and that details are often skipped over. The Parliamentary Secretary told a story about a nail. There is a Scottish way of telling that story which I would like to tell him privately which has quite a different meaning. Next time he gives an illustrative story, I hope that it will be more definite and more related to the subject.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: How was it not related to the subject?

Mr. HARDIE: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman was dealing with the continued depreciation of the nails so that the quantity went down from the ton to the quarter, he was considering it in relation to the outside, but what about the inside? I was giving an illustration just now to show the effect of the increase in interest, and how it affects a man's power to produce. What are you going to do about local prices? What are you going to do about prices rising? You talk of "the present financial situation." Does that mean that it is going to be dealt with by a fixed day with fixed values? You cannot measure without fixed values. You know that there must be a datum line. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows from practical experience that you cannot start a job without
a datum line. If he applied his engineering knowledge and science to that subject, he would never have made the speech he did. What does "the financial situation" mean? Does it mean that the present financial situation is such that no one can define it? Is it to be a statement by which a basis is to be made by saying that x at 12 o'clock on the 23rd or 24th may be y at 2.30 and may revert to a next day or may be a, b or c two or three months after? I want a fixed value, a datum line on which I can make my calculations. Give me the datum line, and I will make out the rest.
On that point of the financial situation, which is still undefined, we find superimposed "any unreasonable increase in price." First of all, we require to define what a reasonable increase in price is. You must have a standard measure of your reasonable price. If someone came to the Parliamentary Secretary with a schedule for a job to deal with and he was taking out the quantities, it would be no good talking about having reasonable quantities. It is necessary to say the number of tons. Here, if the hon. and gallant Member will apply his engineering knowledge, one comes down to common sense. What is this that we would call "any unreasonable increase?" That means that reason must be applied, although I do not see any proof of that being done in any part of the Bill. Whenever you apply reason to anything, even the price of an article, you are dealing with something which you can put in figures. Are we going to say that the reasonable price for cheese to-day is so much? Are we going to have a datum line fixed saying what is the reasonable price for potatoes, ham and other articles? When you have fixed that, then, if some influence over which we have no control tends to increase the price of the articles, you still have your datum line and can say that, since outside influences have intervened, it is reasonable to charge 2d. or 3d. more. I conclude by asking whether we are to have any definition of what is meant by "the present financial situation" and by "unreasonable increase." I hope that, in the interests not of the Government but of the ordinary man, we may have a definition now, so that the people outside as well as those inside may know what this Bill means, what it is to measure, and what it is to include.

Mr. MARLEY: It is said of men and of circumstances that you can judge them best in an emergency. You can judge this system of society best in an emergency. It is said, if you want to find out what the calibre of an individual is test him at a testing time. This Bill, promoted by Conservatives and Liberals, says quite definitely that they cannot trust people to run this system of society and not to exploit their fellow-men when the opportunity offers. It says, give the opportunity to the people who control our system to speculate, even at the expense of the people, in a time of national crisis and they will do it to the full. That is written across the face of the Bill. Either you can trust them to charge a reasonable price or you cannot. It reminds me of the first story I ever heard, of a little boy who was asked what he thought of Nelson's famous signal, "England expects that every man this day will do his duty." He said Nelson suspected that there were some who would not do their duty. If he had not had that suspicion, there was no need to put the order up. The boy is now a capable scholar teaching other people history. If you believe that the present system works adequately, why do you need to take precautions in a time of emergency? There is no definition of "present financial situation." I assume from what I have heard that, having gone off the Gold Standard, we shall have to pay a higher price in sterling for our imports, and they do not want that higher price to be passed on with arithmetical or geometrical increases to the consumer.
They are going to prevent the exploitation of the ultimate consumer—by whom? By the retailer. How far back are they going along the line from the retailer, I do not think you can get very far. You go to the little retailer and say, "You have charged an unreasonable price for this article." He says, "I can prove to you that I have only charged a reasonable percentage increase on what I paid the wholesaler." The wholesaler says, "I can prove to you that I have only put a reasonable percentage of what I had to pay the importer." The importer says, "Since I have to buy in a speculative market and I do not know what your pound will be worth next week or a month after, I have to have a margin of profit. I have a safety margin of 80 per cent." Why should he not have
a safety margin of 80 per cent. if he finds rapid fluctuations in the pound? What will the President of the Board of Trade do in those circumstances? Suppose the importer of wheat says, "The pound is moving in such a way that we do not know at what price we shall be able to replace our present supplies. In the ordinary way we are prepared to work on a margin of 10 or 15 per cent. At the moment we do not think it is safe to work on a margin of less than 80 per cent." They pass that on to the wholesaler, the wholesaler passes it on to the retailer, and you go to the retailer and say, "You have been charging too much." Apart from setting up a control board to fix the prices of imports, you can get nowhere by the Bill, because everyone can argue that he has only charged a reasonable price. You cannot say the importer is being unreasonable in a system of society run by speculation. If you believe that the importer has a right to speculate on the market and to buy ahead to replace his supplies not knowing what the price of the pound will be, you cannot fix any reasonable prices at all.
One more point. Why only apply this to food prices? Are we saying this is an immoral system of society, and the Bill has no basis in morality at all but simply in hardship, and that you expect an increase in price on this class of commodities will not hit people so much as an increase in food? Why should a man be exploited in his clothes and boots and not be exploited in his breakfast Why should you not take precautions to prevent him from being exploited in the soap with which he washes himself? Why not prevent all exploitation covering every article that he buys, and also his rent? Why not cover every item that comes into the ordinary working-class household? It is that which makes me think this is a piece of window-dressing. The so-called National Government, the concatenation of Members of all parties who are going to the country for support for tariffs, advised by the President of the Board of Trade, know perfectly well that there is going to be a sharp rise in prices. That is the reason for the Bill. They expect it, on the latest information. They would be immediately asked in the country, "When you were asked from the Labour
side what you were going to do to control prices, why did you not introduce a Bill?" Now they have introduced their Bill, and what is it worth? If you are not going to control the prices of imports and if you are not going to regulate the system of society so that you can say, "That is a reasonable price," you will have no reasonable price right down the line to the retailer. I should like to hear someone opposite say you can determine what is a reasonable retail price if you cannot fix what is a reasonable importing price. If you have to go back to fix your importing price, is it going to be done under the present system of society or does it mean control of imports? Why not face up to the issue and say, "We are going to control imports of food"? Get down to the policy on which you are going to fight in the country—the control of imports. But this will not prevent exploitation by each and every person arguing that they have only charged a reasonable increase.
Why should not the home producer do the same? Why should not the producer of wheat ask that he should be allowed to charge the same reasonable increase? [An HON. MEMBER: "He would be very glad to do so."] I know he would, but he would probably be prosecuted by the Board of Trade. They would not prosecute the millers. Imagine the President of the Board of Trade taking out a summons against the chairman of the Millers' Association or saying "We will fine you £100 if you do not stop it." They would merely laugh at it. These are the people who are going to advise the Government as to what is a reasonable price. When they want to know what is a reasonable price of import, the Board of Trade will ask these very people. They have no other method of getting the information. Why not tell the Department to find out the world price and then control imports? That would be a reasonable way of doing it. You cannot expect those who believe in the speculative system of society to take a reasonable course, because, once you show people that it was necessary in an emergency to prevent exploitation of the public, the general consuming public will say, "The sooner we get rid of this system and have a regulated system the better," and you will have no more room for your party politics on the other side.
Where is the President of the Board of Trade going to get his information in regard to the price of imported wheat? Is he going to get it from the importers, and are they going to tell him what is a reasonable price? If so, they will get away with the benefit of the rate of exchange. They will say, "Here is what we are charging," and you cannot stop an increase in price and you cannot stop everyone else saying, "We have only charged a reasonable increase on what it costs us."
The Government take no action to see that the cost of the import is kept reasonable as compared with to-day's price. In other words, they are going to ignore the biggest evil and to attack the smallest. If the Government are not prepared to set up a board to fix prices of commodities at what they fetch in the

world market, and pass on reasonable charges, the Bill is useless. You can prosecute the little man as much as you like, but prices will go up and everyone will say, "I have only charged a reasonable price beyond what I have paid to the wholesaler or the importer." This is a piece of window-dressing and bluff, and it will not save unreasonable charges being demanded of consumers.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Sir Bolton Eyres Monsen) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 64.

Division No. 519.]
AYES.
[7.27 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Aitchlson, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Albery, Irving James
Dlxey, A. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Aske, Sir Robert
Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred


Atholl, Duchess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Atkinson, C.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unives.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ferguson, Sir John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fielden, E. B.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Foot, Isaac
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Birkett, W. Norman
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bracken, B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lymington, Viscount


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Ganzonl, Sir John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Gassetlaw)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Buchan, John
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Glassey, A. E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Butler, R. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gower, Sir Robert
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Markham, S. F.


Campbell, E. T.
Granville, E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Carver, Major W. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gray, Milner
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, A. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nail-Caln, A. R. N.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hanbaury, C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Harbord, A.
O'Connor, T. J.


Cowan, D. M.
Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Crichton Stuart, Lord C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Penny, Sir George


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hurd, Percy A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Train, J.


Purbrick, R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Pybus, Percy John
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ramsay, T. S. Wilson
Skelton, A. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Ramsbotham, H.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smithers, Waldron
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Remer, John R.
Snowden, Rt. Hon, Philip
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
White, H. G.


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Southby, Commander A R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Withers, Sir John James


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Womersley, W. J.


Ross, Ronald D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, Sir F.



Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Captain Margesson and Viscount


Savery, S. S.
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Elmley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Haycock, A. W.
Perry, S. F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Herriotts, J.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hoffman, P. C.
Sanders, W. S.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jenkins, Sir William
Sawyer, G. F.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Scurr John


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Shillaker, J. F.


Bromfield, William
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lees, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Clarke, J. S.
Longden, F.
Strauss, G. R.


Daggar, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Ede, James Chuter
Marley, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Middleton, G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Oldfleld, J. R.



Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Palln, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Thurtle.


Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY PERFORMANCES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Even the acute controversy upon which the House has been engaged during the past few weeks will not have obscured from hon. Members the controversial occasions during the summer upon which we discussed the Sunday Performances Bill. When a Second Reading of the Bill to deal with Sunday cinemas was given in this House, hon. Members will remem-
ber that it raised a great question of principle, and that it stirred the consciences of hon. Members on one side or the other and displayed a deep cleavage of opinion. I hope that nothing I say to-day on the Bill, the Second Reading of which I am moving, will stir feelings of that nature. It would be well if very shortly I recounted to the House the steps which led up to the necessity for the introduction of this Bill. Hon. Members will remember that the legal obstacles to the Sunday opening of cinemas or the Sunday performances of concerts are contained in Section 1 of the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, which lays down that any house used for public entertainment or amusement or for publicly debating on any subject upon the Lord's Day, called Sunday, to which people shall be admitted by payment shall be deemed a disorderly house, and the keeper of a disorderly house shall be liable to a penalty of £200 a day. For many years the law as contained in that Section was unchallenged. It was not, in fact, until somewhere in the 1880's that the London County Council first began
to permit the holding of concerts on Sundays. Their action in so doing was challenged in the courts a few years later, and it was then held in the Ring's Bench Division that if admission to a concert was termed to be free, the fact that a certain number of seats were reserved on payment did not bring the concert within the meaning of Section 1 of the Act of 1780. Since that time it has been the practice, not only in London, but in many parts of the country, to permit the holding of Sunday concerts.
Naturally, the history of Sunday cinemas is a more recent one, but since the year 1916 the London County Council, who were the first to deal with the subject, have made a practice of exercising a form of control over the Sunday opening of cinemas. They did not, in fact, license such premises, but in observance of an agreement which they entered into with the owners of cinemas, and whereby they enforced certain regulations as to profit and as to labour, they undertook to take no steps for the enforcement of the law. That example has subsequently been followed by a considerable number of other licensing authorities in different parts of the country. This position continued, as hon. Members will remember, until the end of last year, when a test case was brought into the courts and taken to the Court of Appeal, which finally decided that the action of the London County Council in this way was illegal, and, although that particular case was concerned only with cinemas, certain obiter dicta of the judges in the case threw considerable doubt upon the position to which I have referred in which the practice of holding Sunday concerts has been allowed to continue.
It was in those circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) the Home Secretary in the late Government, introduced a Bill into this House for discussion and consideration. It was not, of course, a Government Bill, although I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself expressed his approval of it. It had for its object the regulation of the whole question of the Sunday opening of cinemas and concerts. The House will remember that that Bill received a Second Reading by a substantial majority in a very large House during the summer, and that it subsequently went to Committee up-
stairs where it made considerable progress in spite of the eloquence of some of its opponents. No doubt had the normal Parliamentary situation continued it would eventually have come down, if not over their dead bodies, over their dry throats, to a further stage in this House. That position to-day is obviously impossible.
The pledge of the Prime Minister was given that no controversial legislation should be introduced during the present emergency Session, and no one, I think, could say that the late Home Secretary's Bill was a non-controversial Measure. In those circumstances, it was impossible to proceed. What would have been the effect if the action of the Government had merely been to decide upon the withdrawal of that Bill and to allow the position to remain otherwise unchanged? We believe that it would have been impossible for the present situation to continue. The practice of the licensing authorities had been held nearly a year ago by a court of law to have no foundation in law. It is quite true that since that time they have taken no steps to enforce the law because there was a Parliamentary Bill which, if passed, would have regularised the position. Were that Bill to have been withdrawn, and were a situation to arise, with the present situation having been declared illegal, in which there was before Parliament no sign of a legislative attempt to alter the position, it would, I believe, have been impossible for local authorities any longer to withhold their duty to enforce the law as it stands to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members cheered that remark, and I hope to say a word or two later on as to the manner in which it should be brought about. If the Bill before the House were allowed to lapse, the Sunday opening of cinemas would be open to action by the common informer. The Home Secretary has power to remit penalties in respect of offences against the Sunday Observance Act, and he has exercised that power in the past, but the situation is very different if, in fact, there is no sign that Parliament will be in the near future attempting to review the position. In any case, let me remind hon. Members that the power of the Home Secretary extends only to penalties. He has no power to remit costs, and it will clearly be seen that quite a lucrative practice might be built
up by the bringing of cases against the cinemas by a common informer, particularly if the Home Secretary has no power to remit costs.
It is clear that the gap before the House can deal with a question of this magnitude must be bridged. Hon. Members opposite may have more information than I have as to the immediate course of our Parliamentary future, but, whatever it may be, it is certain that during the critical times of the next few months nobody will be able to embark upon a real attempt to regularise the position. It was made abundantly clear in the summer that to deal with the matter would require an amount of Parliamentary time which it is impossible to think will be available during the critical months of the coming winter. Some hon. Members opposite cheered when I said that failure to pass this Bill would lead to the closing down of Sunday cinemas. That is a consummation that some of them desire, but do they really want it to happen in that way? I believe that it was their sincere desire to convince hon. Members that the preservation of the old Sunday Observance Act was in the best interests, morally and physically, of the people. A great deal of printed matter was directed to that end during the summer. I do not believe that those hon. Members really wish to see a question of this magnitude, which raises such great points of principle and conflict, to be settled not by the deliberate verdict of the House, after the whole matter has been considered, but simply because the House, in the present state of emergency, has not time to deal with it.
In the circumstances, I believe this Bill is the only course which is open to the House to deal with the situation. It makes no attempt whatsoever to deal with the fundamentals of the position. It is nothing more than a standstill order. Hon. Members will remember that the Bill introduced by the late Home Secretary was a genuine effort to deal with the whole position. It provided the whole machinery for the licensing of these cinemas and concerts for England and Wales. It defined the authorities who were to be responsible. It set out a detailed scheme for taking the opinion of the locality as to whether or not they
wish to exercise this privilege. It laid down the conditions under which the licences were to be granted, and it also laid down the conditions as to labour and as to the distribution of the profits. It was a permanent solution on a regular basis of the whole of the problem. The Bill which I introduce contains none of those elements. It makes no alteration in the existing practice. It merely stabilises the existing conditions for a brief period until the time when Parliament will once again be able to turn its attention to the question and settle it after due consideration and not merely by lack of time.
Let me turn to the Bill itself. It consists of three Clauses, the main operative part of which lies in the First Clause. The object of that Clause is to permit of the Sunday opening of cinemas and the Sunday performance of concerts in areas where to-day they are permitted. The power to grant a licence as to Sunday opening is restricted to these licensing authorities which during the 12 months before the passing of this Act have exercised what they wrongly believed to be their legal right to permit the Sunday opening of cinemas and concerts. In any area where during the past 12 months that believed right has not been exercised, no right will be granted. There is no power whatsoever for an authority in whose area to-day cinemas are not permitted to open on Sunday, to use this Bill for the purpose of doing something which up to now has been non-existent. The same applies to concerts. Even for those authorities to whom the power is given it will be entirely permissive. It will be entirely in their discretion whether they continue to permit any or all of the cinemas to open in their area.
No compulsion is put upon the licensing authorities by the Bill. It gives to them the power of imposing conditions. I would remind hon. Members, some of whom believe that the best thing to do would be to allow things to stay as they are, in the belief that probably cinemas would be able to run along on Sundays, that the effect of the decision of last year has been to remove from local authorities the control which up to now they have purported to exercise. They have in the past, as part of the agreement which they entered into, insisted upon a
certain measure of control. Since the decision in the court they have had no power to do that and they have had to relax the control which they had exercised hitherto. In those cases where the licensing of Sunday cinemas is exercised, this Clause will restore to the local authority the power of imposing conditions as to labour and as to the distribution of profits.
The second Sub-section deals with the question of definition. Hon. Members will there find the meaning of cinematograph entertainment and music hall entertainment, which are the two forms of Sunday performances covered by the first Clause. There has been expressed in certain quarters a fear that the permission for the Sunday opening of cinemas may be extended to the giving of a kind of Sunday variety performance. It is feared that the definition in the Bill will not be sufficiently rigid to exclude that possibility. I can assure hon. Members that the definition has been drawn up with that very case in mind, and I am instructed by the legal advisers that it is quite definite that under this Sub-section variety performances at cinemas would not be allowed. There is the further point that now that control is to be restored to the local authorities they will be able to exercise control. The London County Council, for instance, will be able to resume the practice, which I believe they formerly exercised, of making it one of the conditions on which they granted their licence that no variety entertainment should be given. Apart from that fact, I am informed that the definition in Sub-section (2) definitely excludes forms of variety entertainment from the scone of the power of the licensing authorities.
Clause 2 deals with the possibility of action by a common informer. The powers of the Home Secretary under the Remission of Penalties Act, 1875, refer only to the remission of penalties and not to costs. Therefore, in Clause 2 we provide that any action pending which has been instituted since the 2nd day of April, which was the date of the introduction of the Bill of the late Home Secretary, shall be discharged and made void. In that case there is not only no question of remitting penalties, but the informer will be unable to recover costs. We have, however, made this distinction
with regard to any actions which were instituted before the 2nd April, that they shall only be discharged subject to any order which the court or the judge may think fit to make with regard to costs. The reason for that distinction is the fact that whereas the man who instituted proceedings before the 2nd April might fairly say that he was in ignorance of any intention to amend the law, the man who instituted proceedings after the introduction of the late Home Secretary's Bill was warned by the form of the Bill itself that should it pass into law such action would be discharged and made void.
8.0 p.m.
There is one further provision in Clause 2 which is a matter of some importance. We have laid down that no proceedings under the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. Hon. Members may well ask why that is necessary if under the Bill we are in fact legalising these Sunday cinema performances and concerts. The reason is, that under Section 1 of the Act of 1780 there are certain other forms of Sunday performances which were declared to be illegal. The best examples of that are zoological gardens and public debates. We have, unlike the cinema and the concert, provided in the Bill no machinery for the licensing of such performances. The reason is plain. The machinery already exists for licensing cinemas and concerts on six days of the week, and all we have to do is to extend that machinery for licensing them on Sundays. But in the case of the zoological gardens and debates, rightly or wrongly, no such licensing authority exists, and, therefore, there is no authority to whom this power can be given. I do not think there is any section of religion which would like to see debates, even if a charge is made for admission, and lectures, or visits to the zoological gardens, done away with, and we think that the best way to deal with this matter is to say that any action brought by a common informer must first obtain the sanction of the Attorney-General. The Clause also deals with the extent and duration of the Bill. The Bill does not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. It does not extend to Northern Ireland because under the settlement licensing matters of this kind are left within the competence of the Parliament in Belfast. It does not extend
to Scotland because the Act of 1780 does not apply to Scotland, and a recent decision of the courts, although decided on other grounds, contained obiter dicta which showed that no similar legal objection existed in Scotland as exists in this country. We have, therefore, been advised that, unlike this country, if you wish merely to stabilise the conditions for a limited period of time it will be unnecessary to introduce this new legislation in Scotland.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Why do you extend it to Wales?

Mr. STANLEY: I was just going to tell the hon. Member why. I regret if I have placed them in their wrong order; I should have put Wales first and Scotland last. The reason why it extends to Wales is that there is no area in Wales, although there is in the contiguous county of Monmouthshire, where the Sunday opening of cinemas has even been permitted and, therefore, as far as Wales is concerned, this Bill will make no difference whatsoever. It has never been permitted there up to the present, and if the Bill is passed no authority in Wales will have any power to permit the opening of cinemas on Sunday in the future. The position with regard to concerts is different. Wales, I believe, is a music-loving country, and the practice of giving Sunday concerts is old and widespread. I cannot believe, however strong the feeling may be against the Sunday opening of cinemas, that there really exists the same feeling in Wales against the Sunday performance of concerts which they have enjoyed so long. If hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies will realise that as far as they are concerned this Bill only legalises Sunday concerts and does not legalise the Sunday opening of cinemas, a great deal of their objection will disappear.
The Bill is to run for the period of a year. We believe that it is not useful to put in a shorter time in view of the great pressure which obviously there will be upon Parliamentary time in the future. I know that hon. Members have expressed a fear that as this Bill is to last for a year that fact will enable it to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and so by a back door this temporary Measure might become the permanent law of the land. Let me say at once that
it is no intention of the Government that this should be the case and, indeed, my right hon. Friend was an opponent of the principle of definitely and permanently allowing the Sunday openings of cinemas; and no one would suggest that he would lend himself for one moment to such an imposition on the House. Since I have been in the House it has always been the custom to take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill somewhere about December. There is no rule or law or precedent which guides this decision, but in point of fact I have never known this Bill to be taken at any other period.
Hon. Members will appreciate this point, that if this Bill becomes law within the next few days it will expire next October and there will be a gap between the expiration of this Bill and the normal time at which the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is taken. If it were the intention of some Government, not of course of the present Government, to go back upon what I have declared to be the intention of the Government it would be necessary for them to introduce the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at the end of a busy summer session, and whoever may be the Chief Whip looking after the fortunes of the Government he would hardly encourage such a procedure. I can assure hon. Members that it is not the intention of the Government to obtain a permanent settlement of this question by any such side line. This Bill is introduced to allow a breathing space so that the whole question can once and for all be settled by Parliament.
Finally, let me point out to hon. Members who were opposed to the Bill introduced by the late Home Secretary how entirely different these two Bills are in their character and scope. The present Measure is merely a temporary regulation which will extend the practice which has grown up in the past and merely stabilises that practice for a short time. In the first Bill a great question of principle was raised which divided the House on lines quite apart altogether from the lines of ordinary party politics. There is no question of principle involved in this Bill. I know that opponents of the Measure are afraid that by giving even a temporary sanction to a proceeding of which they disapprove they are compromising their principle and that it might at some future time be held up against them that once having supported such
a practice, even for a brief period, they are debarred in future from ever opposing it. That is an entirely wrong view to take of the matter. By supporting this Bill they are not giving away their power of resisting a permanent Measure of this character, if and when it is introduced.
In that belief I am strengthened by a letter which the Home Secretary has received from the Council of Christian Ministers on Social Questions, which is a body composed of members not only of the Church of England but of the Free Churches as well. The two secretaries, the Reverend P. T. Kirk and the Reverend Henry Carter were among the most determined opponents of the Bill last summer.

Mr. KEDWARD: That is entirely wrong.

Mr. STANLEY: They did, in fact, oppose it; and in their letter they advised that the proposal of the Government to return to the status quo is the wisest course to pursue. That I believe to be the case. May I remind hon. Members once more of the consequences which will arise if this Bill is not passed? It would result in the almost immediate closing of cinemas on Sundays in London and in other areas where it is now permitted. The winter before us will indeed be a grim winter. Whichever side is in power, whatever policy is adopted—although some of us may have our ideas as to the degree of grimness which the alternatives present—we are united in agreeing that it is going to be a difficult and trying winter. The failure to pass this Bill will result in depriving hundreds and thousands of people of an amusement to which they have long been accustomed and which many of them consider to be indispensable. In the midst of all the difficulties of the last two months, I still retain enough faith in democracy to believe that these people would accept that result cheerfully if they believed that it was the result of a decision which the House of Commons had taken in its wisdom and because the House believed it to be for the benefit of the community. But I do not think they would accept it if they considered it to be merely the result of the House of Commons being unable through lack of time to come to any decision at all. It is because I hope that the final decision of this long controversy will
represent the considered opinion of the House of Commons that I urge the Second Reading of a Measure which will give the House and the country a breathing space in which this matter can be fully considered and finally decided.

Mr. SHORT: No one will find fault with the clear and concise statement covering the history of this subject and the provisions embodied in the Bill, which has been made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. He has indicated that when a somewhat similar Bill was introduced by the previous Government it raised the voice of controversy. I cannot think that on this occasion that voice will be still. I have the feeling that conscience will move some hon. Members to give expression to their feelings to-night. They are Members who are now on the Government side, but on the previous Bill they voted against the Second Reading. The present Home Secretary was among the number, but he has found it convenient, now he is faced with the responsibility, to change his opinion. At any rate, he is backing the Bill. I understand it is a Government Measure, and that there is to he no free vote on the Government side. I shall be interested to know what will be the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). Will conscience dictate to him on this occasion as on the last?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Foot): It will not be a still voice.

Mr. SHORT: We have never known the hon. Member to fail, so far as the expression of his opinions is concerned. During his political life he has given us many examples of his great sincerity, and I cannot think that even on this occasion he will fail. I was not impressed by the plea of the Under-Secretary in regard to urgency. The hon. Gentleman did not buttress that plea with sufficient evidence to satisfy me. He told us that if the Bill were not passed the cinemas would apse on Sundays. Has he been told so by those who run the cinemas? Have vested interests held a pistol at his head? Or is it that local authorities, who hitherto have acted in good faith, find it difficult to maintain the present position? I was not impressed by the consideration of urgency, because I understand that we are on the point of going to the country,
and I should have hoped that this matter might have waited until another Government, more fitted and endowed with a greater right to deal with this matter, had been elected.
Let me make it plain that so far as I express any views on this Bill I speak only for myself, not for any of my hon. Friends around me or for any of those who are absent. It is clear that when a recent decision was given in the courts an unhappy situation arose. It affected the action of local authorities who for a long period of time had exercised what they considered to be a right in granting the privilege to cinema proprietors to open their theatres on Sundays. It is undesirable that the law should be left in the uncertain state in which we find it today. Three things emerge from this state of the law. In the first place, the administration of large and responsible authorities like the London County Council has not been in accordance with the law. The law is violated by individual persons and by private companies. It is not enforced by the Home Secretary, if he has the power to enforce it; nor is it enforced by the Law Officers of the Crown. If Parliament has any wisdom left, it should take action to deal with the matter. Hon. Members must ask themselves whether we can afford to leave things as they are. No Government is anxious to enforce the law.
I doubt whether it would be seriously contended that Section 1 of the Act of 1780 represents the present-day view of the great majority of the people. Certainly I am encouraged in that opinion by the fact that many religious bodies have expressed their views in that sense. Sunday concerts have been given in London since 1889, and upon the very slender foundation of a case which was dealt with in 1887 we have seen these entertainments becoming more and more common. As has been said, since 1916 cinemas have been opened on Sundays. As time has passed an ever growing number have been opened, and the London County Council has defined conditions under which they might be opened. In 96 areas outside London cinemas have been opened. As regards the explanation offered of Clause 1 of the Bill, there is no need to go further into that matter. What the Bill pro-
poses to do is clear, but, even if it receives the sanction of the House, we cannot regard it as a final settlement. I regard it myself as a makeshift proposal—almost as makeshift as the Government now in office. I am sorry that the Attorney-General is not in his place. I think he ought to be here on this occasion.

Mr. CAMPBELL: And the Leader of the Opposition ought to be present.

Mr. SHORT: We know where he is, and the Leader of the Tory party, on occasion, has been absent from his duties here when attending the annual conference of his party. If such debating points as that are to be made, the discussion on this Bill may go on for a long time. I have not said anything to disturb the serenity of this Debate, and I am inclined to be helpful, but, if hon. Members want me to take a different attitude, I am prepared to do so. I can assure the House that nothing would give me greater pleasure than to get a little hot on this question. For two and a-quarter years I have only had to speak when called upon to do so, as it were. I have had to be silent, but now I can get going, and I shall do so if I am seriously tempted.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I am sorry if I disturbed the hon. Gentleman. I wish him to be as short as possible.

Mr. SHORT: I have always won either by a short head or by many lengths, and I have no doubt that I shall do so in the future. I was going to recall that the Attorney-General in Committee upstairs told us that he went to church on Sunday mornings and on Sunday evenings he went to the cinema, and that he winked at breaches of the law—he did not say on the other six days of the week. At any rate, with this Clause the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to do the first two things, and there will be no occasion for him or his fellow Law Officers to wink at breaches of the law. That is a very desirable thing, and it will doubtless obviate some sleepless nights for the Attorney-General in view of the questions which may be fired at him from time to time from these benches.
The Bill which was originally introduced went much further than the present Bill. It covered such things as debates
and the opening of the Zoological Gardens and of museums of inanimate objects. If we cannot have equality of sacrifice, I think we ought to have equality of rights in so far as they existed prior to the decision. This Bill seeks to regularise the position as it exists at the moment, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the Sunday Observance Act deals also with the right of public debate. It prohibits public debating on Sunday on any subject whatever, and the decision of the Court made that Section operative. That Section applies not only to debates but also, as I have said, to the Zoological Gardens and to museums, and this Bill does not touch that matter. There is no provision in this Bill as regards machinery for dealing with the question of licensing. That aspect of the matter does not appear to have been dealt with at all. I complained a little while ago about the absence of the Attorney-General, because I think we ought to have from him some statement upon that aspect of the matter.

Mr. STANLEY: I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that the absence of the Attorney-General is not due to any discourtesy to him. The Attorney-General asked me to explain to the hon. Gentleman that a very urgent engagement required him to leave the House. He will return as soon as possible, and meanwhile the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I have been taking copious notes of the points which he is raising in order that I may refer them to the Attorney-General.

Mr. SHORT: It is entirely wrong that the Attorney-General should not be here, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that if he were sitting on these benches, in the same circumstances, he would have been shouting and demanding the presence of the Attorney-General.

Mr. STANLEY: But a soft answer such as I have given would immediately reduce me to silence.

Mr. SHORT: It will not reduce me to silence. We are entitled to have the Attorney-General here. His name is on the back of the Bill, and the Bill involves legal technicalities. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in fact, walked out of the House while the hon. Gentleman was on his feet. It is not right that the House should be treated
in this way, because the learned Attorney-General is involved in this matter. The hon. Gentleman opposite might get away with this by saying that these matters were not covered, but that he relied upon the provision as to the consent of the Attorney-General being given to proceedings. We are entitled to ask however what attitude the Attorney-General takes upon this question of Debates, and in view of the continued absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman I feel that we ought to move the Adjournment of the Debate. I wish to know if it would be in order to do so.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The House has already decided to sit after Eleven o'Clock to-night, if necessary, in order to dispose of this business, and I could not accept such a Motion.

Mr. SHORT: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think that the Attorney-General ought to be sent for because we shall certainly desire to know what is his position upon this question. If I were really unpleasant about this matter, if I were offering severe and drastic opposition to the Bill, I could understand that attitude on the part of the Government, but up to the present I have been helpful and the only serious point which I have had to urge in respect of the Bill is one which affects the Attorney-General.

Mr. FOOT rose—

Mr. SHORT: The hon. Member for Bodmin cannot answer this question, nor is he entitled to answer it, nor indeed do I desire him to answer it, and, if he answered it, I do not think I should accept hie answer. Clause 2 says:
No such proceeding shall, while this Act is in force, be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General.
Where is the Solicitor-General? Not that I desire him upon this point, because I have asked for the Attorney-General, and I stick to what I have asked for.

Mr. STANLEY: He is coming.

Mr. SHORT: He is very slow in coming, and I should like to see the Attorney-General on that bench and for him to listen to me. I have been long enough in this House to know that if
an hon. Member stands at this Box and makes such an appeal, that bench should have fallen over itself to fetch him in; and, if it were not for the decision of the House to which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have rightly called attention, there would have been a Division upon this point.
The Clause says that no such proceeding shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, but it is clear that any citizen has a right to take action where public debate is concerned or where the Zoological Gardens are concerned, where thousands of people go every Sunday for enjoyment and entertainment. Indeed, the Attorney-General in the Committee upstairs put it on higher grounds. He put it on the ground of education and spoke of his little child going into the Zoological Gardens and coming away better informed and better educated. These Zoological Gardens can be closed; these public debates can be stopped. Section 1 of the Sunday Observance Act is in operation, and the only thing that stands betwen the stopping of those useful, entertaining, and intellectual pursuits is the consent of either one or other of the Law Officers of the Crown. He can take away the legal rights of the citizens by simply saying, "No, I will not agree that this, that, or the other ought not to be stopped."
This is a very serious matter. The learned Attorney-General is senior to me in the profession, and I cannot think that anyone occupying the position of Law Officer of the Crown, as he does, with high regard among my legal brethren, would act other than in the public welfare. I am not criticising him upon that ground, but he ought to have been here to listen, and I ask the Patronage Secretary whether he has asked him to come in. [Interruption.] I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has now arrived, but he has taken a lot of persuading to come in to listen to a poor junior. We have not had the pleasure of hearing his voice while he has sat in the present Government, unless he has answered a question, but we hope we shall have the privilege and pleasure to-night. I have been complaining of the absence of the right hon. and learned Member, and I have called attention to
the fact that this Bill does not cover debates or the Zoological Gardens.
I have reminded the House of the high regard that the hon. and learned Attorney hold for the Zoological Gardens, that he impressed the Committee upstairs with their value from an educational point of view, and that he told the Committee how he used to take his little child there, and what a terrible thing it would be if the Zoological Gardens were closed on Sundays. I understand that under this Bill they could be closed unless the learned Attorney-General stopped this proceeding, and I have already been careful to express the view that he would always act with due regard to the public welfare, but we are entitled to have his statement on the question, in view of the fact that the matter rests entirely upon the consent of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General.
We, on this side, would like to feel as certain as is reasonably possible, because it is not embodied in legal phraseology, that these educational and magnificent Zoological Gardens shall not be in danger of being closed through some action brought by some common informer, and that the public debates, which are clearly covered by the section of the Sunday Observance Act and which are of vital importance to this side of the House, shall not be stopped. Indeed, when I looked at the Bill first, I wondered whether something of the vindictiveness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had found its way into the hearts and minds of the Home Secretary and of the learned Attorney-General. We should like to be assured upon those points, and I am only sorry that the enforced absence of my right hon. and learned Friend has caused me to stand longer at this Box than I originally intended.
As a final word—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear hear!"]—I am invited to go on, but there are so many who desire to speak that I can well afford to leave this matter in their capable hands. We do not regard this as a final settlement. I believe that the local authorities, who have been acting in good faith in these matters prior to the recent judgment, should be relieved of their anxieties and legal risks; and so far as the Bill regularises the position, conferring no advantages upon any other than those
who were originally enjoying them, I shall offer no objection to it while reserving the rights of my friends and myself on the Committee stage.

Mr. MORRIS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day three months."
This Bill has been introduced in special circumstances that were not anticipated when the House adjourned for the Summer Recess. I regret that the late Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs found it possible to be so gentle with the Bill, but I gather that he has not made up his mind into which Lobby he will go. When he reflects further on the provisions of the Bill, I have no doubt that he will be found in the Lobby against it. The Prime Minister said to-day, in answer to a question that the Eleven o'clock Rule was being suspended to enable the Government to obtain this Measure owing to the urgency of the situation. That is a remarkable statement for the Prime Minister to make. He was Prime Minister in April last when the Bill dealing with the Sunday opening of cinemas was brought before the House. It was not brought in as a Government Measure. The same illegalities were being perpetrated then as are being perpetrated to-day. The position in law in April was precisely what is is to-day, and yet the Government, in bringing in a Bill dealing with precisely the same situation as that which confronts us to-day, left it to the free vote of the House. To-day we are confronted with a three-line Whip to support this Measure.
Why has the situation become so urgent to-day? What new urgency is there? The former Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill in April last, used this language, which he must have used with the full knowledge of the Prime Minister. He said that he was not speaking on behalf of his colleagues, but was putting forward a Bill on his own behalf. He said:
I shall stand here in the character of an individual advocate of the Bill, although in no sense committing my colleagues either officially or personally to support the Bill.
He went on to give the reason why he was moving the Bill at all. It was not his ambition, although he was supporting
the Bill, to change the law as it then stood. He said that the Measure was introduced
not so much for the purpose of advocating a change as for the purpose of affording the House of Commons this free opportunity of saying what should be done upon the issues which have been raised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1931; cols. 633–34, Vol. 251.]
That was the intention—to give the House a free opportunity of discussing the issue, but here is a new Government called into being because of a crisis which has occurred in national affairs, and which takes advantage of that position to produce this Sunday cinema Bill. What relation this has to-day with the crisis confronting the nation, I fail to understand. No fewer than 15 Members of the present Government were found in the Opposition Lobby on the Second Reading of the Bill in April. How are they to justify a state of emergency to-day that causes this Bill? It is no answer for them to say that this is a different Bill, or to say, "We did not like the details of the Bill in April." When they went into the Lobby against the Bill, they did so not against the details of the Bill, but against the principle of the Bill. What are they going to say to-night? Are they going to press upon the Prime Minister that the decision should be left to the free vote of the House?
We have had a very interesting presentation of this Bill, and I take the opportunity of congratulating the Under-Secretary of State upon his first speech from that Box, but I have no doubt that he wishes, as I wish, that he had had a better task for his first speech. It is interesting to note that the Bill is presented by the Under-Secretary of State, and not by the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman opposite complained that the Attorney-General was not present, but where is the Home Secretary? Did he find that it might be a little embarrassing to take part in this Debate because he voted against the Bill last April? He is now apparently supporting this Bill. The Solicitor-General in this Government also made a very powerful speech against the last Bill. It is argued to-night that all that this Bill does is to maintain the status quo—standing still, in the language of the Under-Secretary of State. Let me quote what the Solicitor-General said in the Debate in April:
The strength of the case for this Bill is that it defends a position which is obviously easily defended and is a very good tactical position, as, broadly speaking, it merely prolongs or protects the existing position, but, in the first place, I take leave to say that to enable cinemas to be opened legally on Sundays has a very different character merely from opening them illegally or in spite of the law. As long as it is illegal but some authorities are content to evade or defy the law, you are likely to have the evil, if it be an evil, restricted to comparatively few cases. The moment you legalise it, then it has a different character altogether, and, unless you can be quite sure that you can erect some bastion that will prevent a further encroachment upon the use of Sunday, you are, by legalising the existing system, creating a base for a further evasion of the sanctity of that day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1931; col. 732, Vol. 251.]
The question I want to put to these 15 Members is, have they put their beliefs in pawn merely because they have crossed from that side of the House to this? We shall know if their beliefs are in pawn when the Division is taken. The Under-Secretary of State wound up his speech by saying that there is a grim winter in front of us; so what is apparently offered to the people with which to meet a grim winter is the Sunday cinema which they have had before. Is that the answer of a National Government to deal with a national emergency? We are face to face with a grim time, partly because of the mentality of our own people and the mentality of the people of the world, and here is the remedy—a Sunday Cinemas Bill! The Government, when they came into office, said no controversial Bill would be proceeded with, and all controversial Measures have been dropped. The Bill on this subject introduced earlier in the Session was so controversial that it has been dropped. It was fought upstairs in Committee, and it would still have been fought, line by line. That has been dropped and this Bill substituted. It is the only case in which a Bill has been substituted for a controversial Bill which was dropped. Why has this exception been made? Had there been no great financial crisis there would have been no National Government and the House would not be meeting to-night. The House would not have met, presumably, till the end of the month, the Bill upstairs would still have been in existence, the Committee proceedings would have been resumed and the first opportunity for
passing that Bill into law would not have arrived until some time in December. Now, because of a national crisis, the cinema interest is to be given a privileged position and to have its Bill at least two months earlier.

Mr. G. HARDIE: Another branch of American finance.

Mr. MORRIS: Does the House realise what an amazing Bill this is? We are told that it is put forward merely to maintain the status quo, the "standing still Bill." If we are to maintain the status quo, surely it must be a lawful status quo that we are to maintain; but if we are to maintain the existing status quo we are maintaining an unlawful position and not making it lawful. Up to 1916 cinemas in London could not be opened on Sundays for profit. No charge could be made for admission, under the terms of the Act of 1780. The Act of 1780 was, up to 1916, being enforced in London and elsewhere. That is not to say that cinemas did not open before 1916. They did, in fact, open. They opened with the admission free, and the proceeds went in aid of charity. To-day there is nothing to prevent the cinemas in London being opened on Sundays under the Act of 1780, provided they make no charge for admission. The one test under the Act of 1780 is the commercialising and making a profit out of Sunday. In 1916 the London County Council came to an agreement with the cinemas that they would not proceed under the 1780 Act against those which opened on Sundays.
At the beginning of this year it turned out that that was an unlawful agreement, and the London County Council came to this House, asking us to make lawful their own unlawful actions. Why should we? Why should this House come to the rescue of the London County Council? Let me turn again to the language of the Home Secretary when he was bringing the Bill forward. He said the House must make up its mind upon one of two things, either that the law should be changed or that it should be enforced. Why is it impossible to enforce the law to-day? The Under-Secretary said to-night that unless this Bill were passed there would be only one alternative, and that was to enforce the law. It amazes me that the Under-Secretary should regret that that should
be the only alternative. [Interruption.] Is it to be said in this House that, whether a law be good or bad, one local authority may be allowed to break it if it chooses? Is there to be one law for the London County Council and another law for the rest of the country?

Mr. HAYCOCK: Would the hon. Member be in favour of prosecuting everybody who did not go to the Established Church last Sunday? It is the law that everyone must go.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. MORRIS: I will come to the issue of prosecutions for not going to church. The status quo is that the agreement made by the London County Council is an unlawful agreement. The Act of 1780 still applies. How does this Bill affect it? In the first Clause it purports to allow only those authorities who have made an agreement during the past year with the cinemas in their areas to open on Sundays to continue Sunday opening. In other words, where cinemas have been opened during the past year unlawfully they shall in the coming year be opened lawfully. That is not maintaining the status quo. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent other areas which now do not give permission for the opening of cinemas on Sundays from giving that permission within their areas. The London County Council permit the opening of cinemas in their area. The Middlesex County Council do not permit the opening of cinemas. The Middlesex County Council, subject it is true, to the Act of 1780, can make an agreement in precisely the same way as the London County Council made an agreement for the opening of cinemas within their area. They can give an undertaking that they will not proceed against such cinemas under the Act of 1780. I agree that it would be an unlawful agreement, but there is nothing in this Bill which prevents the Middlesex County Council in the coming year from entering into such an unlawful agreement.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): You cannot, by Act of Parliament, prevent people breaking the law. A council can make an unlawful agreement if they wish to do so; but, if within the last year permission had not been given by them, their permission cannot legally he given now, and anybody who opens a cinema there on Sunday will
find himself liable to a prosecution at the hands of a common informer.

Mr. MORRIS: That is a very interesting admission. Let us see about the common informer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already admitted that it is open to authorities in whose areas cinemas are now closed on Sunday to enter into the same unlawful agreement with those cinemas as the London County Council did. The result, as far as the London County Council and those authorities that are now breaking the law are concerned, has been that they have become powerful enough to enforce Parliament to give them lawful permission for what they have been doing. Will the other authorities, when they have allowed cinemas to be open for a year, be able to come here and say, "We have been opening unlawfully for a year, give us permission to open lawfully for another year"? If they take up such a position, what answer will the right hon. and learned Gentleman have? He has taken the view to-day that once the position which exists in London has arisen it ought to be made lawful. If it is to be made lawful in the case of the London County Council, why should it not be made lawful a year hence in the case of Middlesex?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the common informer. I am not sure that his interpretation is accurate, because Clause 2 alters the position with regard to the common informer. Clause 2 does not merely apply to those areas which have been opening unlawfully during the past year, but will apply all over the country, so that the position then may be this. To-day a cinema opens at the peril of the common informer taking action, but after this Bill becomes law, if Middlesex, which does not open to-day, opens unlawfully, the common informer cannot take action against a cinema in Middlesex without first getting the leave of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is a complete alteration of the position, and it places the new lawbreaker in a privileged position. But that is not the only alteration. Take a sentence towards the end of the first Clause. Whether it, is due to bad drafting in this great emergency Bill, I do not know. Take cases within the London County Council area where certain cine-
mas are open and certain cinemas are closed. They are not licensed lawfully, but they purport to be licensed. We are told that in this Bill only those cinemas which have hitherto been open are to be lawfully opened in the coming year. [Interruption.] If that is not the meaning of the Clause, I should be glad to hear from the Attorney-General what is the real meaning.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The drafting of the Clause is perfectly simple. It is not a question of licensing a particular cinema, but of licensing in a particular area. No doubt these so-called licences are not legal, but in that area there is to be power under this Bill not to license any particular cinema, but any cinema in the area.

Mr. MORRIS: I will give an example of what is called the perfect drafting of Clause 1. In line 20 of that Clause it is provided that:
while this Act is in force, allow places in that area licensed under the said enactments, to be opened and used on Sundays for the purpose of cinematograph entertainments.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is quite different.

Mr. MORRIS: I am afraid the Attorney-General does not appreciate my point. The Bill says:
allow places in that area licensed under the said enactments, to be opened.
There are no places licensed; they only purport to be licensed.

Mr. STANLEY: Are there no cinemas licensed for certain days of the week?

Mr. MORRIS: We are dealing with the seventh day of the week. Clause 1 reads:
in pursuance of arrangements purported to have been made with those authorities respectively, then, notwithstanding anything in any enactment relating to Sunday observance, those authorities respectively may, while this Act is in force, allow places in that area licensed under the said enactments.
What does that mean? The whole of this Bill is badly conceived, and, far from maintaining the status quo, it changes the whole position with regard to it. We are told that we need not be alarmed about the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because it is the intention that this Bill is going to be enforced
for a year and no more. Of course, I do not doubt the good faith of the Under-Secretary, but I would like to point out that this Bill expires in October, and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill does not expire until December. We are all aware that there may be a stronger argument for continuing this Bill a year hence. It will probably be said that we cannot come to an agreement in regard to this Measure, and the best way to deal with the subject will be to continue the compromise which is proposed in this Bill. That will be the ultimate position, and it is idle to attempt to delude the House that what this Bill is asking hon. Members to do is simply to maintain the status quo. That is not so, because the House is being asked to alter the law with regard to Sunday performances, and this is really the thin end of the-wedge.
The proposed alteration is a thoroughly bad one, and if the situation is so urgent, why proceed with this Bill on the eve of a General Election? It is an undoubted fact that the Bill originally introduced to deal with this question would not have been passed into law until next December. In these circumstances, why not let this matter be decided at the General Election, after which the new Government will have time to deal with this question? As for the compromise which is now suggested, it reminds me of a story which I once read in an essay by Mr. Birrell. It is the story of a captain who wanted to conciliate a savage chief to allow him to pass through his territory, and the only thing he had to offer to the chief was his dress suit. When the captain arrived at the territory through which he wished to pass, he found that the chief was wearing the dress coat, another savage was wearing the waistcoat, and the trousers had been so torn that they could not be recognised. Mr. Birrell said that there was nothing absurd in wearing a dress suit, and there was nothing absurd about a naked savage, but there was something grotesque in a savage chief wearing a dress coat only, which was an absurd compromise. This Bill is an absurd compromise.
We are asked to deal with this Bill now because of the grimness of the coming winter. I am not putting my opposition to this Bill on Sabbatarian grounds,
but I think the State is very much concerned with the maintenance of a great English institution like Sunday. What is the value of Sunday in English life? To answer that question I do not turn to the Church, or to what is preached on Sundays in order to find out what is the value of Sunday life, but I turn to Blue Books. There was published by the first Labour Government in this country a report of a Royal Commission dealing with agriculture, and that is a subject far removed from the Sunday question. The Commissioners were selected because they were economic experts, and they were asked to compare the agricultural position in this country with the position in the other countries of Europe. That Commission reported that it was impossible to make an accurate comparison because of the different religious observances of the people. There is another document issued by the International Labour Office of the League of Nations, and it shows that experts were appointed to compare the industrial position of this country with the countries of Europe, and one of the points upon which they reported was the difference in the observance of Sunday which obtained in the different countries. That is common to the whole economic life and structure of all countries, and one of the most important things as far as any country is concerned, and even as far as its economic welfare is concerned, it its attitude of mind, and it is well that every country should have a day set apart when it can pass judgment upon its own destiny.
An hon. Member opposite made an interruption and asked, "What about going to church?" but I think it is just as well that the nation should have an opportunity to ask whither it is going, and at no time was that question more necessary than it is to-day. That is what Sunday stands for in English life, as an economic factor. Has anyone asked himself why Scotsmen have been more successful economically and commercially than most of the other nations in the British Isles? [Interruption.] The kind of view and the kind of observance which they have entertained with regard to Sunday has had a material effect in moulding their economic welfare and commercial prosperity. That is the case for Sunday observance.
The State has an interest in it. The first concern of the State at all times is its own self-preservation. Are you going to whittle away to-day, in the circumstances with which we are confronted, one of the main institutions for the development of our national character and our national life and prosperity? It is said to-day that we should save as much money as we can in this country; we are told by this Government that we should refrain as far as possible from buying foreign goods, and should encourage home production; and yet here is a Bill, introduced by the National Government almost at the last moment of its life, to enable £4,000,000 to go out of the country to American interests. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary laughs at that, but I am taking the figures from the cinema industry itself.

Mr. STANLEY: Am I to understand that the cinema trade of this country, in the 96 areas in which alone Sunday cinemas are allowed, pays £4,000,000 a year for the seventh night on which its cinemas are open?

Mr. MORRIS: The cinema people, in advocating the concession of Sunday opening, said that this would mean to them at least £7,000,000 a year, and, of that £7,000,000, £4,000,000 is controlled by American interests. That is the Sunday concession, and, as I have already said, this Bill would not prevent a single cinema from being opened in the outside areas. That is the Bill that we are asked to support. It is time that this nation stopped and thought before it passed this Bill, and changed an institution which cannot he better described than in the language of the Solicitor-General in the present Government when he compared the desecration of the sanctity of Sunday to a desecration of the Cenotaph by placing an advertisement upon it. He said:
I should outrage the public opinion of this country if I placed an advertisement upon the Cenotaph.
That was not because the Cenotaph is different from any other building, but because of the sacredness which attaches to it. Would it be any less desecration to stick half an advertisement on the Cenotaph—to stick on it this Bill rather than the Bill that was introduced last April? Clearly not.
I have two serious requests to make to the hon. Gentleman and the Government. The first is that, in our present-day circumstances, this Bill should be withdrawn and abandoned entirely; there is no justification for it. The second is that, if the hon. Gentleman cannot agree to that, the Bill should be left to-night to a free vote of the House, in precisely the same way as the Bill introduced in April. For my own part, whether it be left to a, free vote of the House or not, I regard the Bill as so serious an innovation in our national life, and as dealing with this situation in so very undesirable a way, that, whatever the consequences to the Government might be, unless they concede a free vote of the House, I must go into the Lobby against the Bill.

Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to second the Amendment.
After the comprehensive speech of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) in moving this Amendment, it will only be necessary for me, in seconding it, to address the House very shortly. I want to say a word with regard to the position of the House in relation to its vote on this Bill. When the present Government was formed, in the crisis which came upon us in August, we were all led to understand that it was formed for one purpose only, namely, by economy and by the passing of a second Finance Bill into law, to enable the Budget of the earlier part of the year to be belanced, so that some steps should be taken to restore the financial stability of the country. We were led to understand that, when that had taken place, the function of the emergency National Government would have ended. We have been asked, in ail the three-line Whips that have been issued, and we have responded day by day, to support the Government in its whole programme, however distasteful it might be to any individual member of the party to which we belong. That programme has now been completed, and today we have dealt with two totally different matters. The Bill which was before the House earlier was clearly an emergency Measure of the most urgent kind, simply to deal for a short time with the difficulties that might arise out of events which have taken place during the lifetime of the present Government.
This other Bill, however, appears to me to have no relation whatever either to the urgency of the matter or to the emergency in which we were asked to support the present Government. Here is a matter which is more controversial than almost any subject that could be introduced into this House, and, when the somewhat similar but more extended Measure was introduced in April of this year, it was not only left to a free vote of the House, but the Home Secretary, in introducing it, said that he was only stating his individual opinion, and he bound nobody. It cannot be denied that this Bill, whatever else it does, legalises, in the matter of opening cinemas on Sundays, that which is illegal to-day, and yet we are told, by inference, that it is a matter which the Government feel they must put through at this particular moment. I endorse the appeal of the hon. Member for Cardigan that at any rate, if the Bill cannot be withdrawn, it should not be forced upon the House, but should be left, in these expiring days, probably, of the present House, to a free vote, so that we should not be compelled to treat as a purely party matter something which has nothing whatever to do with party or with what the present Government was instituted to carry out.
I say that the Bill should be withdrawn because, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, despite his speech, entirely failed to convince me that it is a matter of enormous urgency that this particular legislation should be enacted to-day or to-morrow rather than, say, in four, five or six weeks' time. The present state of the law has continued for a considerable time, and, as has been cogently pointed out, if the emergency had never arisen for which the present Government was instituted, the Bill that was already before the House could not have become law until nearly the end of the year. If, therefore, the present state of affairs could in those circumstances be allowed to subsist until the end of November, or possibly December, why on earth cannot this Measure, if it be necessary, be passed into law in six or seven weeks' time? It is obvious that there is no such real urgency. Therefore, I maintain that it is quite a mistaken idea to bring this kind of Bill forward as part of the agreement between the supporters of the Government and the Government as to the manner of Measures we were
really asked to support. Nobody can say that this is not a controversial matter. I am only one back bench private Member of the House, but I have here seven or eight telegrams from different people in my constituency—people whom I know and who have signed their names. I have also a sheaf of letters and printed matter of various kinds from different organisations in the country.
The country has only known for a couple of days that the Government proposed to put this Measure through, and they have not had time really to make their protest effective, but in the very short space of time they have had it is perfectly clear that this proposal has aroused the greatest hostility in all parts of the country. I find among these protests—they are not all from religious bodies—one from the Theatrical Managers' Association. They complain of this Bill. Why? Because it is going to legalise in certain areas a privileged position in which the cinema and the cinema only is to open on the seventh day, and they say it is not fair. What right have we to pass a Measure of this kind which is not a question of stabilising the status quo but exactly the opposite? You are altering the law and making legal what is not legal to-day. If we are to do that, which is clearly an alteration, have we any right to make this alteration in favour of one particular entertainment industry without hearing what the other entertainment industries have to say about it? Is it wise at this particular moment, when we are suffering from a drain of capital from this country, to give a seventh day opportunity for still more spending of British money which is to go straight to America?
If we wanted to do something to strengthen the credit of this country I could understand the urgency. I do not know whether the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend who preceded me, namely, £4,000,000 more money to go to America annually on account of the Sunday opening of cinemas, is correct or not, but it is clearly a very substantial sum, and at the present time when we ought to be doing everything we possibly can to stop buying foreign goods or going to entertainments which produce export of capital from this country, so far from it being urgent to enact this, it is rather
extraordinarily urgent in the public interest that we should not enact it. It is a most undesirable thing that we should be asked to put into law a Bill which, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, will say deliberately that what we are going to legalise is a state of things which has been hitherto illegal in certain areas. We are thus to have the law in the position—permanently as many people think, but anyhow, for a very long while, instead of being only for one year as is claimed—of there being one thing as to the law about Sunday cinemas in some areas and quite another thing in other areas. To do that even for 12 months is unwise, and it is idle to talk about it not being put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is certain to go into it. It will go into it next December as certain as can be, and it will go in from December to December. I have sat on the Committee which considers that Bill for many years past, and I know that once something gets into the Bill it is uncommonly difficult to get it out.
Therefore we shall find that we have enacted now something which will probably stay for a great number of years until Parliament finds an opportunity of rectifying it and the public is very much more united on the question. It will be said that the most convenient thing to do will be to carry on this really ridiculous and indefensible state of affairs which will be produced by this Bill. Therefore, I claim that I can have complete freedom because this is no part of legislation we were led to expect when we were asked to support the Government. It is a highly controversial matter, and one which has aroused great feeling throughout the country even in the few days that the country has had knowledge of it. On these grounds, whether there is a free vote or not, I shall go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend in opposition to it.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: It is precisely because this Bill does propose to continue the present arrangement until Parliament gets an opportunity of considering the whole question of entertainments on Sunday that I am going to support it. To use a legal quibble and to say that to sustain the status quo is to overlook the fact that you do make some technical
difference in the position of the man called—as none of us like to be called—the common informer, is, to my mind, a very poor argument to use. The status quo is quite enough to the ordinary layman, and it means that the actual practice that is pertaining to-day shall continue to pertain until opportunities arise when the whole matter can be considered de novo. That is why we should support the Bill. I have another reason. To me the Bill is a very good and welcome indication that the present Government are no believers in their own emergency. If they did believe in it, and if, for instance, they had thought that the pound was going to run away as the mark did, so that you had to take a tram ride with a few hundred thousand pounds for your ticket, it is obvious that cinemas would not have to be looked after in the next few years. If money is going to run away to that extent, we need not trouble that cinemas may close, for they will close in any event. Therefore, this is a very welcome indication that there is no substance in the emergency that we are told has given rise to the present Government and is also put forward for the present Bill.
I want to put the position not on technical or legal grounds, but on the ground of common right. The old Act of 1780 is being fallen back upon. It was practically inoperative for many years. It was only when anyone saw an opportunity of a public advertisement for himself, or the probability of making money, that it was ever enforced, at least in recent times. Licences were not given by bodies acting consciously illegally. They were given by bodies who really thought the power to license given them by the Act of 1909 entitled them to grant such licences and it went on, even without the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Morris) having awakened to the fact that the licences were illegal, until some person called a "common informer" found it out for him. He has relied entirely upon this person, the common informer. Why, if he is so keen on keeping Sunday, did he not discover the illegality of these licences long ago, or why did he not give the Lord's Day Observance Society the legal information which would have been of incalculable value to them? They have
been a long time discovering it and it is in comparatively recent times that the Act has been really rediscovered and put into practice, and now he falls back on it. I have every reason to believe, from what I know of the hon. Gentleman in the House and of the part of the country that he comes from, that he is probably very genuine Sabbatarian and a religious man.

Mr. MORRIS: On the first issue, the, hon. Member is misinformed. The case of 1931 to decide the legality or otherwise of the agreement that the London County Council entered into, was brought about by a trade dispute—by commercial rivalry.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: It was brought about by a comparative accident. The so-called illegality of the licences, if it had been a glaring thing, even if it had been a thing known to the ordinary, common or garden practising lawyer, would long ago have been brought to the public knowledge. But it required an accident of that description to occur before the opportunity was discovered and seized by those who take strict views on the question of the Sabbath.
I want, however, to put it to the hon. Gentleman, who represents a considerable body of opinion, that, by associating themselves with very narrow views in connection with the observance of Sunday, they are doing religion, and they are doing this day which they call sacred, incalculable harm. If it is wrong to go to a cinema on a Sunday, it is equally wrong to go on a Monday, a Tuesday or a Wednesday. I can see no reason why it should be wrong in itself to open a cinema, where comparatively few people are engaged, far fewer people than on our railways or in our public houses, which are already open. You are doing harm to the Sabbath question and to the strong religious bias of the country in connection with the observance of Sunday by not giving people an opportunity of entering these places of entertainment, or education if you like, on a Sunday. By insisting on these places being closed, the hon. Member is associating religion and the keeping of the Sabbath with narrow views. He referred to Scots. I have met many Scots without going to Scotland. When I have gone to Scotland I have liked them very little, because they practise their strict Sab-
batarian views in their provincial towns to an absurd extent. Anyone who has had the misfortune of being landed there as a tourist on the Sabbath day will know that the opportunities of entertainment are limited. The Scot in London is eager for opportunities of enjoying himself on Sunday and objects more strongly than anyone else to the closing of these places. I can only speak for my own acquaintance. Take the man at the head of what, I hope, will one day prove to be a successful attempt on the part of British talent and enterprise to bring the British film into the same relationship to our cinemas as films that come from some other parts of the world. The man who has had the courage to stick to the production of British films is a, Scotsman, who is very much in favour of having cinemas open on Sundays. It is when they come away from Scotland, with very few exceptions, that you find they take an entirely different view.
I also want to suggest that you associate in the public mind the idea of the Sabbath with something that is repellent. For instance, over and over again the hon. Gentleman referred to the common informer as the main support that he leant upon in this matter. Presumably, if there were no common informer, the troubles that have arisen in connection with the opening of cinemas would not have arisen.

Mr. MORRIS: I did not rely on the common informer at all. I mentioned the changed position of the common informer.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: The hon. Gentleman did not rely on the common informer while he was harmless. He relied on him when he became spiteful.

Mr. MORRIS: No. I tried to explain that the second Clause of the Bill altered the position with regard to the activities of the common informer. I was neither praising nor blaming him.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: The Bill puts him in the position of no longer being able in the case of the cinemas, which are already open, to exercise his power. It is precisely because he loses that power of acting as common informer that the hon. Gentleman is against the Bill. I think that is a perfectly correct interpretation of his position.

Mr. MORRIS: No.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Then his observations had no meaning.

Mr. MORRIS: If the hon. Member will read the second Clause and look at my observations, he will see their relevance.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: I know all about the second Clause. The hon. Gentleman, from his own point of view, is making a great mistake in enforcing, first of all, an old Act which was brought in to face a position with regard to Sunday entirely different from anything that there is today. The sort of Debate that we are having would have been an illegal and a wicked thing on a Sunday in 1780. It was to put down those debates, because many of them were considered at that time revolutionary debates likely to strike at the very foundation of the constitution of the country. That situation has altered. The whole people have altered. To go back to 1780 for legislation upon an intimate domestic question of this kind is to overlook the enormous change in the habits of the people. It is conceivable that in 1780 it Might have been advisable to prevent the opening of certain institutions on a Sunday, but in the year 1931, owing to the advance in the education and the outlook of the people, and the growth of their political and citizen rights, one should take an entirely different view and say that what was dangerous in 1780 is innocuous and right in 1931.
That is the situation. It is this association of rather narrow views about Sunday, the Act of 1780, the common informer and all sorts of inhibitions which set up in people's minds the idea that Sunday is an institution when you must not do this, that or the other and when, in point of fact, the whole of religion in their minds becomes looked upon as a sort of spoil sport for humanity. The Church, both Catholic and Anglican, have a much more open mind than the people who go to chapel with regard to the keeping of the Sabbath with its falling back upon the common informer and with its going back to the year 1780. It is their attitude which makes people say, "If this is religion, I do not want it." The Nonconformists have forgotten one of their hymns—I am in a way a Nonconformist—which runs something like this:
Religion never was designed to make our pleasures less.
People have had it so drilled into their minds that they must on no account be allowed to have anything to do with these things on a Sunday, and they have associated inhibitions of all sorts with religion, with the result that they often react against it. It is a difference between the old and the young. I happen to be among the young. I believe very largely that the older people want what they call the Sabbath Day. What do they mean? They mean a quiet sort of day when they can go to sleep in the afternoon, for one thing. They go to chapel in the morning.

Mr. HAYCOCK: And go to sleep there!

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: But they want a quiet day. They call it a day of reflection. I am afraid that many of them do not spend it in a reflective way at all. It is simply a matter of old habit. And all the young people in their household, among whom I number myself, are in revolt not only against the prohibitions put upon them, but against the impossibility of a cheerful Sunday, and then you get a reaction against religion and against the people who will not leave the old religious conceptions of many centuries ago.
In this matter, the opinions of two parties are at stake. Fortunately we can break away from our ordinary political associations and take quite a definite view of the matter. On the one side, you have the people who want to go to church or chapel on a Sunday. On the other side, you have the people who want to go to cinemas, or concerts, or even debates, or maybe, to public meetings. Observe the difference. It will be seen at once that there is a narrowness on one side that does not exist on the other side. The people who go to church would close the cinemas and other places of amusement if they had their way, but the people who go to the cinemas are not desirous of closing the churches. There is the difference. Some of them, brought up in such homes even, might think it highly moral and desirable to close a chapel, but the people who go to the cinemas do not take that lofty view. They do not say that the church or chapel is an immoral thing and that the country would be much better if it were closed, but the
people who go to chapel, wrapped up in the certainty of their own righteousness, say that you should not go to cinemas, and they would take good care that you did not go by closing them. If a generous attitude were taken, and if in this country freedom were given to both sides, does anybody really think that the cinemas would grow to the extent that people imagine they would or religion suffer?
We always have painted before us the picture of the Continental Sunday. Most of us in this House have seen the Continental Sunday. I have seen it. There is nothing very dreadful about it. They get up very much earlier on Sundays than we do here. They have about seven Masses before we have turned out of our beds to our breakfast coffee, and the population all go to these Masses. As the day wears on, they do not think that it is necessary for their religion that they should wear black frock coats and go about with sombre faces, with books resembling Bibles under their arms. They do not associate religion with narrow ideas. Fortunately, we are getting emancipated by degrees because of our contact with the Continental Sunday, but unfortunately, many, like my hon. Friend who comes from Cardigan are not fully emancipated yet. He has not shaken off that influence which still holds him and still clouds his outlook upon life and makes him think that in order to be righteous Sunday should be devoid of joy. Personally, I think he is wrong—[Interruption.] Very well, if he does not want us to think that, let him dissociate his religion from such persons—we used to call then sneaks at school—as the common informer. Let him dissociate his religion from this constant "Thou shalt not," and it will be better for religion.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: The hon. Member opposite may be interested in some information which I have in my possession regarding the psychological effect of the cinema upon the children of Birmingham. A questionnaire was sent out under the authority of Sir Charles Grant Robertson, Vice Chancellor of the Birmingham University, to some 80,000 Birmingham children who habitually attend the cinema.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Are those cinemas only open on Sunday?

Sir C. OMAN: If the hon. Member will listen to me with a little patience, I think he will be rewarded. The questionnaire included such questions as these: What is the most striking thing you have seen in the films? What impression did you take away with you from having seen the films? What sort of films, do you most desire to see? I will cite a few of the replies of the children. Here are some of their impressions from the films: "How very easy it is to open safes;" "How the idle rich live;" "How very easy it is to deceive a policeman;" "What a very good time a girl can have." Those are the sort of things that stuck in the minds those Birmingham children. Those were the main impressions made on the young people under 14. I cannot therefore think that from the ethical and improving point of view the use of Sunday afternoon for the opening of the cinemas can be exactly recommended or encouraged. There are many other gems produced by the children of Birmingham in reply to the questionnaire of which I disapprove less. Sixty per cent. of the boys replied: "There is a great deal too much in all the films of the silly love stuff." Others, in less, but considerable percentage, said that there was a great deal too much of the silly sob stuff. These children had obviously been having administered to them sexual and sentimental films which are not particularly good pabulum for the young.
Not as one of the old Scottish Sabbatarians whom Sir Walter Scott loved to castigate, but as a decent-minded citizen who does not want to do anything, as far as he is responsible, to paganise the Sabbath, I feel that I must support the opposition to the Bill. I do not think that the sort of places these children have been visiting and the entertainment they have seen have been morally or ethically good for them. I suppose the hon. Member opposite would suggest that if one sent them to Sunday school it would make them narrow, but it might harm them a good deal less than learning how easy it is to open a safe, or how good a time a girl can have. These children of Birmingham, as the statistics show, were habitual film goers. One-fourth of them went three times a week and one-half of them twice a week. It seems to me that if the children of
England are in the habit of going to the cinemas twice or thrice a week, to add an extra day is unnecessary. The average English child, I understand, goes on Saturday afternoon. Why it should go on the Sunday afternoon also I cannot for the life of me see. Therefore, I thoroughly object to have anything to do with this Bill.
10.0 p.m.
There can be no doubt that the general allowing of films to be shown on Sundays would lead to the allowing of other entertainments. Theatres and other places would be opened. It is said that films are often silly and sometimes vulgar and sometimes suggestive, but on the whole there is no very deep moral taint. I cannot say the same of a good many stage plays. A French critic has said that of the plays produced in France in the last 30 years, 54 per cent. dealt with adultery, 30 per cent. with other abnormal relations of the sexes, and only the remainder, 16 per cent., with adventure and history, in which there was no main interest of cross-affections. I do not say that the English stage is in such a state: but I do say that there is a certain percentage of English plays that are extremely objectionable, which display the most extraordinary delusion on the part of authors, actors and managers that a certain sort of nasty play will succeed. The odd thing is that most of these nasty plays are produced and fizzle out at once. They are not successful with the public but they go on being produced. I should be very sorry that any man or child in England should be given the possibility of having his mind defiled on Sunday afternoons by seeing half-a-dozen of the plays that I could cite. There is no doubt that from the moral point of view the stage is a good deal worse than the cinema. Therefore, while I am opposing this Bill to allow the Sunday opening of cinemas, I should still more strongly oppose the Sunday opening of theatres.

Mr. SHIILAKER: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) on his interesting and able speech, which did not contain a single point against the Bill. It was full of debating points which had nothing to do with the cinema. I am in favour of the Bill. Hon. Members opposite have produced telegrams and a letter from the theatrical society against
the Measure. The borough council of Acton have asked me to support the Sunday opening of cinemas and also to endeavour to obtain power for local authorities with more than 20,000 inhabitants to give permission to cinemas to open on Sundays. The hon. Member for Cardigan asked why this House should come to the assistance of the London County Council. The House is not being asked to come to the assistance of the London County Council. As a Londoner I have a perfect right to go to a cinema on Sunday evening. The hon. Member also said that Sunday is a day for reflection. The cinemas do not open until half-past five in the afternoon, and if he cannot get all the reflection he wants between the time he gets up and half-past five, he must have a, great deal about which to think.
Under the Act of 1870 the National Sunday League have given many fine concerts. They had no power to make any charge. There were 20 free seats, which were always occupied by the stewards. They however managed to win in the end, and nobody in London would desire to see these concerts stopped. I have not heard from any of the opponents of the Bill any reference to the degradation and the moral effect on the men who have to work in our blast furnaces on Sundays, or the men who have to make cement in our factories; or the debasement and moral degradation of the men who have to work on Sundays to produce our gas. Why is it that this moral degradation only applies to our amusements? I hope Clause 2 means what I hope and believe it does. I hope the Attorney-General will make it quite clear that it means that every district in England and Wales may give a permit for the opening on Sundays, and that the Attorney-General will stop any prosecution, even if it is the common informer who is taking action. I hope it means this. It is because I believe cinemas should open on Sundays for the amusement and interest of the people that I am going to support the Bill.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: We have heard a great deal during the discussion of a phrase which has been immortalised in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas)—the status quo; and the
hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) has endeavoured to give a somewhat legal interpretation of that phrase. It seems to me that the clear intention of the Bill is to preserve the situation according to what many people believed to be the law until a recent decision was given in the courts, and certainly to preserve a state of affairs that is in harmony with the wishes of the great majority of the people in the areas affected. A plea was put forward by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the rejection of the Bill that it should be left to a free vote of the House. They seem to entirely ignore the fact that the Bill has already been the subject of a free vote; which has not been the case in connection with any other Bill brought forward during the whole of this Parliament. The Government, therefore, are entitled to claim that the House of Commons, free from any restriction of party Whips, has already by a substantial majority voted in favour of this particular proposal.
The opposition to this Bill comes from two quarters which are totally opposed to each other—namely, the theatres and the Sabbatarians. They are opposing this Bill for totally different reasons. It is a curious combination. Apparently, opposition, like adversity, makes strange bed-fellows. So far as the opposition of the theatres is concerned, both to this and the former Bill, it has never seemed to me either logical or justifiable. What is their attitude? If the theatres put forward a claim for equality of privilege it would receive a good deal of sympathy from many hon. Members, but not being successful in that claim, or believing that they would not obtain sufficient support for it, they say that if they are not to be allowed to open on Sundays they are going to do their utmost to prevent cinemas opening on Sundays. That is a dog in the manger attitude which it is hard to defend. We may sympathise with the theatres in regard to the competition of the cinemas. In many instances, and it is a fact that has to be recognised, the cinemas are very serious competitors because they provide a much better entertainment at a cheaper price and with more comfortable conditions. The theatres must face up to what is the crux of the matter. If an Amendment was brought forward that they should be given equality of treatment I should be
inclined to support such a claim, subject to certain safeguards as to a six-day week; but I cannot support them in their opposition to this Bill.
There is the position of the other section of the opposition—the Salabatarians. Hon. Members have been circularised by the Lords Day Observance Society giving their objections to this particular Measure. A careful perusal of the reasons why, in their opinion, this Bill should be opposed have convinced me of the soundness of my own intended support of the Bill. It appears from these reasons, however high minded and sincere may be the authors of this opposition, that it is merely another attempt by a well-organised but at the same time highly intolerant minority to interfere with the ordinary freedom of the people. What are the arguments they bring forward in opposition to the Bill? In the first place, they say that it will cause unnecessary labour and involve a seven-day week for many workers. So do many other things to which they do not express such unrelenting opposition. There are a great many other ways in which people have to work seven days in the week, and I am sure that any Measure to try and stop that state of affairs, and certainly any safeguards which may be included in this Bill for that purpose, would receive the support of the overwhelming majority of the House.
We are told that it interferes with religious worship. Again, one has to remind those who are opposed to the Bill that cinemas are only open in the evenings, there is no proposal to open them any earlier, and I submit that it really savours of hypocrisy to suggest that people will be prevented from going to church if they so desire because the cinemas are open on Sunday evenings. Then we are told that it is contrary to Divine law. That is a matter which every Member must decide for himself. It is further suggested that the Bill is brought forward to satisfy the commercial greed of the cinema industry. No proof has been produced that that is the fact. At all events, whether there is any substance in that or not, I am satisfied that it is not the reason why the great majority in this House who are supporting the Bill are doing so. Speaking for myself, I have not the slightest interest of any kind in the cinema industry, and I am not regarding this matter for one moment from the
point of view of the cinema industry. I am looking at it entirely from what I believe to be the legitimate interests of the ordinary public. Then we are told that this is a Bill to excuse people breaking the law. We know well that, in many respects, the law is broken every day in the literal sense of the word, and that any law which is not in harmony with the wishes and feelings of the majority of people will always be broken. Certainly, speaking as a lawyer, I think there is nothing more calculated to bring the law into disrespect than to have nominally enforced laws which are not in harmony with the wishes of the people. I fully agreed with the late Under-Secretary of the Home Office when he said that that was a most undesirable situation and one that ought to be remedied at the earliest possible moment.
We are further informed that 1,500,000 people have petitioned against the Bill. We all know how petitions of that kind can be worked up. After all, that total constitutes a very small minority indeed compared with the many millions who go to the cinema every week and every Sunday night in the year. I have very good authority for saying that many people who work in slum areas, and know the conditions prevailing there, are strongly of opinion that it would be most regrettable if the cinemas were to be shut on Sunday evenings. Of course, if it were suggested that a stricter censorship might be exercised over the subject matter of films shown on Sundays, the suggestion is one with which I should be inclined to agree. But certainly the fact that people can go to the cinema on a Sunday evening does, in an enormous number of cases, prevent them from going to less desirable places. It certainly keeps thousands and thousands off the streets and out of the public-houses.
In the largest town in my own constituency the cinemas are not allowed to be opened on Sunday evenings. What is the result? Throughout a good part of the year the people flock to the only other form of entertainment that is available, and that happens to be a Labour meeting which is held every Sunday night in the largest cinema. Many of my own supporters attend regularly, and always come away more convinced than ever before in their support of me. I hope that this whole matter of Sunday performances will be comprehensively recon-
sidered at a later stage when the opportunity allows. In the meantime, I feel that this Bill s absolutely necessary in order to preserve the present position, and that it does not in any way prejudice the reconsideration of the matter if the time offers when that can be undertaken.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: The hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir G. Rentoul) has given us on this side an excellent reason for opposing this Bill, in his confession that the alternative to the Sunday cinema in his constituency is regular propaganda of the principles of Socialism. I hope that that confession will have the result of converting some hon. Members on these benches who on the Second Reading of the previous Bill voted for the opening of cinemas and that they will, this time, show independence of spirit by voting against this Measure. I have not yet heard in this Debate any explanation of the national emergency which is supposed to justify this Bill. The only reason which I can imagine for the introduction of such a Measure at this juncture is, if I may use a phrase of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, that it is to give a 'breathing space to the Liberal party while it decides whether it shall accept a tariff formula or not.
I feel that there is no real emergency to justify the introduction of the Bill. It is suggested that if we pass this Bill now we shall not prejudice the position in the future. But I repeat the question put by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris). What is the special emergency obtaining now which has not obtained for months past? What particular circumstance makes it essential for the Members of this National Government to combine to put this Bill on the Statute Book against the convictions of, at any rate, a large minority of the citizens of the country? After all, it was no inconsiderable vote which was given against this proposal previously and a good many of the votes for the principle of the previous Bill were given with a reservation and were subject to certain Amendments to be made upstairs—some of which fructified and some of which did not. It is by no means to be assumed that there is behind this Bill that large volume of opinion which some who have spoken in
its favour have ventured to suggest. On the contrary, apart from the representatives of the London constituencies—where admittedly the problem is different—I doubt very much whether there is a consensus of opinion for regarding this as a matter of sufficient national urgency to call for a Bill of this kind.
I venture to say that the Bill is in the nature of a breach of faith with the House of Commons. It was suggested that no legislation of a controversial character would be undertaken, and, if it is suggested that this Bill is not controversial, I think that the course of this Debate shows how keenly a great many Members feel upon this issue. Even the temporary cement which binds together those who support the present Government has not, in spite of this national emergency, been able to hold together during the discussion on this Bill. I cannot find in it any of the guarantees which we should regard as essential before giving assent to the Second Reading.
There is, for example, so far as I can see, no safeguarding of the employés in this industry. There is no provision made, such as was suggested in the other Bill, in regard to any extension of Sunday opening, and I should be pleased to hear the Attorney-General explain away the argument that it is possible to extend the Sunday opening of cinemas under this Bill to areas where cinemas have not previously been open on Sunday. It seems to me that if you are introducing a Bill under which the area of cinema opening is to he enlarged, you at any rate owe it to those who will be brought within the possible ambit of a seven days' week that you should make sufficient provision for the safeguarding of their rights. You are in effect jumping the claim.
Under the name of a temporary emergency Measure, you are really deciding the whole issue with regard to the Sunday opening of cinemas, and I shall be interested to see what the votes of the 15 Members of the Government will be in the Division Lobby. I shall be specially interested to hear the speech of the Minister for Mines, who, it will be remembered, made a most eloquent speech against the principle of this Bill, a most able and convincing speech, finishing up with a very admirable
quotation from Shylock, in which he was stressing the fact that this particular Measure is one to make easier the commercial exploitation of the cinema on Sunday.
It has been suggested from the benches opposite that those who oppose this Bill oppose it either in the interests of the theatrical industry or possibly from a narrow sabbatarian point of view. Does it occur to those hon. Members that some of us who oppose this Bill do it from neither of those points of view, but because we desire the 'continuance of a national Sunday, a day of rest, not necessarily of reflection, but a day's cessation from the ordinary routine and avocations of our everyday life, one day when the exploiter cannot exploit any longer to the extent to which he desires to exploit, one day when the cinema proprietor, in the eloquent description of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), cannot be demoralising the youth of the nation with suggestive pictures and pictures of a doubtful moral standard, one day when we shall be free from these profit-making productions?
We are told to regard this as a national emergency and that it is important that the balance of trade should be restored in our favour, but this is a Measure which in effect will make it very difficult for the balance of trade to be restored in regard to the film industry and the importation of foreign films. I have admired greatly the improvement and growth of the manufacture and production of British films, and I am amazed at the progress made by that industry. Here is a national Government, which tells us to buy British and to be careful in the way in which we use our individual spending power in order that we may assist British industry, a Government which by this Bill is aggravating the very problem which it declares it is most anxious to remove. On these grounds, therefore, I appeal to the Government to realise that they are making a proposition to this House which many of the citizens of this country will regard as a distinct breach of faith, a proposition which violates the conscience of a great many people who want to preserve Sunday as a day of rest, quite apart from any sabbatarian ground.
I agree largely with the hon. Member who has just spoken. I cannot subscribe wholeheartedly to all the reasons
given by the Lord's Day Observance Society for opposition to this Bill. Some of those reasons do not appeal to me, but I recognise that there are sincere people to whom they do strongly appeal, and some of them will appeal to a great many Members on all sides of the House. The National Government in their appeal to the country ought to have some better election cry than this. In a time of dire necessity when, in the words of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, we are to have a grim winter, is the only rallying cry which will hold together the National Government to be that we must open cinemas on Sunday?

Mr. HAYCOCK: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton) was greatly concerned with the other fellow's conscience. He told us that, if we attend cinemas on Sunday, his conscience will be violated. I cannot understand why the other fellow's conscience is violated because of my sins. If I go to the cinema and it is wrong for me to go, I must be the burden bearer of my own sin. I do not outrage or violate the other fellow's conscience.

Mr. WINTERTON: May I inform my hon. Friend that I do not think it is a sin to go to the cinema. If there are cinema proprietor's who are willing to take a collection at their performances in these dire days, let them do so.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Collections are always very popular on Sundays. We do not ask anybody to go to the cinema on Sunday. We are not forcing anybody to go or asking anyone to violate his conscience on Sunday. We are merely asking the other fellow to give those of us who want to go to the cinema on Sunday liberty to do so. We all take our own form of recreation on Sundays. Is there an hon. Member who does not read a Sunday newspaper? Is there an hon. Member who has not gone for a, motor drive on Sunday, or who does not indulge in his own kind of recreation on Sunday? We have private golf clubs open on Sunday, private bowling green open on Sunday, and private cinemas open on Sunday. We have excursion trains on Sunday and public-houses open on Sunday. There is no real agitation to close them. There are some people who can strain at a very small gnat and swallow a herd of circus
elephants. The hon. Member for Cardington (Mr. Morris) said that our films were costing us £4,000,000 a year, which went to Hollywood, and the hon. Member for Loughborough spoke of the unfavourable balance of trade which that helped to cause. If that be so, what about giving up tobacco we send a lot of money to Virginia. There is just as much argument for giving up tobacco as for giving up films, and "our lady nicotine" does a lot more harm than do the ladies from Hollywood.
An hon. Member talked about suggestive films. Of course there are suggestive films, and it is just as wrong to show a suggestive film on Monday as it is on Sunday. Then we heard from the hon. Member for that ancient institution of learning, Oxford (Sir C. Oman), where they live in a tenth century atmosphere. He read us out the answers of schoolboys to a number of questions about the films. They were asked, "What is the most striking thing about the cinema?" One reply was that it showed how easy it was to open a safe. Let hon. Members ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is easy or not—whether he can get anything from Super-tax payers. Another boy said that it showed how the idle rich live. I think the people ought to find out how the idle rich live. We know that the idle rich live in luxury without working, and I think we ought to let the people know how it is done. Another boy said that cinemas showed how easy it was to deceive a policeman. That is unfair, because it is not easy to deceive a policeman, and, if they try it, they may find they are caught. Another answer was that the cinemas showed how a girl could have a good time. I can understand how the hon. Member for Oxford University would give a girl a good time. Yet another answer was a complaint that too much silly love stuff was shown at the cinemas. I can quite understand a man of his age thinking love stuff silly.
If these films are of the character which has been indicated, the censor ought to get busy, and they ought to be stopped on every day in the week; and, by the way, these films are not shown in Birmingham on Sunday. The hon. Member's argument was not against showing films upon Sundays, but against showing
them on any day of the week. There are wrong films, just as there are wrong books and wrong Sunday newspapers. I wonder how many pornographic details we get in Sunday newspapers, and how much they are responsible for the circulation of those papers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask Beaverbrook!"] Yes, ask Beaver-brook.

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: That is an unjust accusation. Lord Beaverbrook's papers do not print it.

Mr. HAYCOCK: It was an hon. Member at the back who said, "Ask Beaver-brook." But I do know this, that for years and years Sunday newspapers have been full of items which I, if I were a father of children, would not want them to read. And I know this much, that Sunday newspapers are not as clean as they could be. To come back to the subject of films, cinemas, apart from a few suggestive films, have made people brighter, have taught them history and geography, and given them another outlook on life. The cinema is one of the greatest inventions of the 19th century, and it has done an enormous amount towards wiping out the ignorance of many people and giving them greater mental alertness. If we strike a fair balance-sheet it is a good thing that the cinemas are here, and, if there are bad cinemas, that is an argument for closing those bad cinemas every day in the week and not merely on Sundays.
Then there is the question of the sanctity of the Sabbath. The hon. Member for Cardigan was very eloquent on that subject, and asked, "What would be said of putting an advertisement on the Cenotaph?" What about those men who kept the War going for 365 days of the year? To talk about the Cenotaph in this way reminds me of the time when murder and slaughter went on for 365 days in the year for 41 years. The sanctity of the Sabbath has been raised in this Debate, but that is not a new question, because it has been before us for many years past. Surely the sanctity of the Sabbath is not going to be seriously disturbed; for years and years we have had cinemas open in London on Sundays. Has there been any great deterioration of the morals of the people of London in consequence of the opening of cinemas on a Sunday? Has there been recently
any of the churches busy agitating to close the cinemas, or have they been waiting for this particular opportunity? During a long period of years there has not been any agitation by clergymen to close the cinemas. I am quite aware what goes on in my own constituency on Sundays, where practically the only recreation for the young people is to gad about the streets when the weather is fine and go to the "pubs" when it is wet.
We have heard a good deal of talk about the continental Sunday. But what happens in our own Empire? What happens in Dublin? There are more people go to church in Dublin on Sunday than in any town in the British Empire. The cinemas are open in Dublin and in London on Sundays, and there is no Member of this House who is able to get up here and suggest that the morality of places where the cinemas do not open on Sundays is any better than the morality of places where the cinemas do open. The morality of the people in London is quite as good as it is in Wigan and Glasgow, where the cinemas are closed. Suppose that I had the power to prevent people going to church, and I exercised it, what a howl there would be from churchgoers. We should think in terms of liberty and liberty alone, and I, in those circumstances, should have just as much right to close churches on Sunday as other people would have to close cinemas. We can always see the other fellow's sins a lot more clearly than our own.
Suppose that in Moscow the commissars decided that religion is the dope of the people, that the churches are exerting a reactionary influence, and that, in the interests of a better Moscow and a better Russia, they would close the churches. What a howl we should get from certain hon. Members opposite! It would be just as much a sin to close the churches, and, if there were any attempt to close the churches, I should speak just as loudly against it. I want the other fellow to be able to go to church if he wants to do so, and the liberty that I give to him I would give also to the other people. Personally, I am too busy to go to cinemas on Sunday. When I do go there it is generally to hear an educated speech, and I hope that a few successful ones will be made there before the last votes in the General Election are counted.
I want the other fellow to decide what he shall do with his leisure. He has earned it; how dare you interfere with the leisure that the other fellow has earned? The only reason that you would have for interfering with it would be that he was considering doing something antisocial. Apart from that, I believe that people should be at liberty on Sundays, not merely to go to cinemas, but to theatres, and I hope that at a later stage of this Bill an Amendment will be moved to allow theatres also to open on Sundays. I believe that it would be a good thing for the people, that it represents the desire of the people and reflects the spirit of the times, and that the opposition to this Bill represents a dog-in-the-manger attitude. I hope that that attitude will not prevail.

Mr. KEDWARD: I hope that the House will reject this Bill, because I believe it to be the very worst Measure that has ever been introduced by this or any other Government. It makes legal in one place something that is illegal in another; what is a virtue in one place becomes a vice in another. I do not think that we have heard here to-night any arguments that would lead us to suppose that the Bill can have any other effect than fastening Sunday cinemas on this country for all time.
The hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Haycock) spoke of liberty. That word has a good many meanings. What about the liberty of the people who are going to be employed, and who are employed, in the cinemas? They are to be compelled to labour on Sundays, in the pressgang of necessity. What becomes of their liberty? We are not talking about how people should spend their leisure, but about the commercialisation of Sunday for profit and gain. If that be not so, every cinema is entitled to open in London next Sunday. They can take a collection to defray their expenses. If it is not a question of profit, but merely of the public good, no one has anything to say; all that they have to do is to remit the charge for admission, and rely on the generosity of the people who are prepared to give generously because it would meet a public need. The whole question is one of the commercialisation of Sunday, and, if you allow this Bill to be passed, you are going to strike a great blow at the very dearest beliefs of
millions of people in this country. You are going to play fast and loose with the very foundations on which the greatness of this nation has been built up.
Here, just in the closing hours of this Parliament, you are going to undo the work that has stood for centuries. Make no mistake about it. You may say, "Well, they are opening now" but you are going by a deliberate act to make this thing legal and by throwing a garment around what is illegal now you will make it attractive to a far larger crowd and give the public authorities throughout the country, at any rate, the sanction of the Government and of Parliament to do what has been done in just a few cases. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!"] It may be rubbish, but I am here to defend the spiritual basis of life. The materialisation of life has gone on and is going on all around us. Here you have a Bill which provides no safeguards and which at any rate gives you no authority over the films which are shown and which includes no provision as to how the profits are to be used. I infinitely preferred the other Measure. You had there, at any rate, provision for consulting the people in the different localities and the public authorities were asked to take the opinion of the people, but you are now asking those of us who have been engaged in this fight for the Sunday, under the pretence of a standstill order, to give up the front line trench and to retire and in 12 months' time to resume the battle in an infinitely weaker position than we should be if we faced it and fought it at present.
I urge this Government, this National Government, to withdraw this Bill. It can only be a bone of contention. You cannot make the plea that what is needed to-day is economy when what you are doing here is to encourage people to spend money on that which they can do without. There are six days and nights for going to the cinema already. It was said in the Debate the other day that there were poor people in the slums crowded into one or two rooms, and the plea was put up for them that you should open the cinemas on Sunday nights, but is there any suggestion that 40,000 or 50,000 people crowded in the tenements of Bermondsey, will all be found in the cinema on Sunday night? You cannot
put up that sort of plea that with bad housing and these nests of courts and alleys you will make it more bearable if you open the cinema on Sunday. If you want to deal with that problem you must tackle it the other way round. There are some elements in the life of the country to which we should give very grave consideration. Make no mistake, you can pass what legislation you like, but, if you leave God out of your plans, He will bring himself into the calculations. Greater nations and greater Empires than this have sunk into the dust, because they have ignored His commands.
I warn this House to-night that as far as I can see, and as far as my reading of history goes, the nations which are prepared to listen to His voice are the people whom He is going to lead forward into greater prosperity. Probably we shall be chastened, but there is only one life for this great nation, and that is to get back to the big things that have made us what we are. Life is on a spiritual basis, and, if you ignore that and if you adopt throughout the country the opening of cinemas and show the kind of films that you show to-day, in 20 or 30 or 40 years' time a new generation will have grown up, and you will find people looking upon virtue, honesty, accuracy, and all those things which are forces of the soul, in a different atmosphere and in a different way. The forces of materialism were never stronger. Do not by a deliberate act to-night undermine the spiritual forces and the forces which have made this country's name loved throughout the world. You can read the history of all the nations of the world. Silently and slowly through the ages a humble Nazarene called Jesus Christ has laid His hand on every form of material good and given it largely to the people who own His sway and have obeyed His commands.
I plead with all the earnestness that I can command that you will not throw away in the closing hours of this Parliament the great heritage which has come to you, but that you will safeguard and preserve it. Nothing can happen if you let this matter rest. Nothing can happen between now and December. Are you afraid to submit this matter to the electors Are you afraid to ask them for a mandate? You have no mandate for doing this. I ask you to allow candidates
at the General Election to be questioned, and, if we are going to undertake this thing, let us do it with our eyes wide open and with the nation behind us. I plead with the Government to withdraw the Bill. By doing so they will give the people an opportunity of saying at the General Election whether they desire this legislation or not.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I cannot pretend to claim the same familiarity with the wishes and purposes of the Almighty as the hon. Member. [Interruption.] I say that quite purposely and deliberately. The hon. Member has no more right to impute particular purposes and wishes to the Almighty than I have. I regard his speech as bunk. I rise for the purpose of explaining why I shall vote for the Bill. The hon. Member has described it as the worst ever introduced into the House. I do not think I have ever heard exaggeration more complete than that. Presumably it is worse than the Economy Bill and worse than the Budget. Now I am asked to join in shutting the cinemas on Sunday in order to drive people to church to listen to that kind of bunk. I flatly decline to do anything of the sort.
11.0 p.m.
My regrets about the Bill are that its scope is much more limited than I should like to see it. In the first place, it limits the facilities for opening cinemas to areas which have in fact issued licences in the past. Further, it limits the operation of the Bill to those areas where cinemas have actually been opened within the last 12 months. Thirdly, it excludes theatres from the scope of the Bill altogether. Each of these limitations, from my point of view, is a disadvantage. I would have preferred the Government to introduce a much more courageous Bill getting right down to the root of the problem. So far as it stands, I shall vote for it, because it is at least one protest against a rigid Sabbatarianism which I regard as the worst enemy of real religion. I would like to have seen it go very much further than that. What are the arguments against There is a series of finicky, pernickety little arguments which, if they were carried to their full extent, would stop all life altogether on the Sabbath. The kind of argument addressed about cinema employés is one with which I sympathise. I think that it is the bounden duty of this House to see that everybody gets one day's rest in seven, but that is not an argument
against the Bill. It is an argument for proper legislation defining the hours of labour but no argument whatever against the Bill. The only argument against the Bill is the so-called religious argument. The argument that if we open cinemas on Sunday the people will cease to go to church to listen to my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS "Order!"]—and his like. I say that if the churches cannot keep their own end up against the cinema on their merits, so much the worse for the churches. They are not entitled to come to me and other Members of this House and ask us to act as recruiting sergeants to provide them with congregations. The whole argument as to what God wants is bunk and humbug. [Interruption.] I say that it is bunk and humbug.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House to use an expression of that description in regard to a speech which anyone who has heard it on this side of the House regards as a speech of the utmost sincerity?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's adjectives are not quite those to which we are accustomed in this House, but I do not think that they are really out of order.

Mr. LOGAN: is it in order when many Members of this House hold in reverence the name of God, for any particular Member of this House to be so disrespectful as not to use it with the proper respect?

Mr. BROWN: I very heartily support that point of Order, and when my hon. Friend acts as if he were in the special confidences of God in this matter— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Yes.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better leave that subject.

Mr. BROWN: But seriously, the hon. Gentleman who preceded me told the House of Commons what was God's law on this subject. I know that we are not in the habit of using plain language in this House, but of humbugging ourselves inside just as much as we humbug ourselves outside. The hon. Member has no right to tell me what God's will is on that subject, and, if he does so, he is claiming a familiarity with the Almighty which I regard personally as irreverent.
I decline to take the views of what the Almighty wants from the hon. Member who preceded me. It reminds me very much of an observation which was made by my late friend John Wheatley. When there was a colossal humbugging agitation in this Howe in regard to the treatment of the churches in Russia, he made this observation which is not without its point now:
As far as I can judge from the bishops, God is losing in the struggle with Stalin.

Mr. SPEAKER: This seems to be quite irrelevant to the subject.

Mr. BR OWN: I hope that I shall succeed in showing that it is pertinent to the subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: I rule the hon. Member out of order.

Mr. BROWN: You may rule me out of order, but with great respect, you must rule me out of order on reasonable grounds.

Mr. SPEAKER: The grounds are sufficient for myself, and they should be sufficient for the hon. Member.

Mr. BROWN: At least I am entitled to express my point of view, and my point of view on this matter is that we are not entitled, in response to a rigid sectarian Sabbatarianism, to deny to people who want to go to the cinema or anywhere else on Sunday the right to do so. That is my view. I hold it, and I desire to express it. We were told from one of those benches that it was a matter of vital importance to preserve the day of rest. I do not object to people preserving their day of rest if they want to, but I strongly object to them imposing their day of rest upon me. The Sabbatarian proposes to exercise a perfect tyranny over everybody else and that, in my view, is a completely unreasonable claim to make.
This Bill, as far as it goes, is to be supported. I wish very much that it went further and proceeded to put the whole business of Sunday entertainments upon a reasonable footing. I represent an industrial town, and I should like some of my Sabbatarian friends to go to that town on a Sunday night. No place of entertainment is open, and they would see hundreds of young men and
girls walking about with nothing to do except walk about or go to the public-house. It is an infinitely better thing, even from the point of view of that religious faith which in my view, the Sabbatarian defames, to give people an opportunity of exercising their own choice. For these reasons I shall vote for the Bill. I hope that it will receive a large majority on Second Reading. In the Committee stage' I should like to see the Government introduce regulations to allow a. Sunday or corresponding day off for workers in the cinema. If they do not do so it will be for hon. Members on this side to put down Amendments to that effect. In the meantime the Bill deserves a Second Reading on its merits.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There is no doubt that this topic does give rise to deep feelings on both sides. While I respect the deep feelings of hon. Members who oppose the Bill, I cannot share them. It is worth while to recall to the House the position in which we are introducing the Bill. This year a decision of the Court of Appeal was given that the practice that had gone on for a very large number of years in London—I would point out that London does not seem to be very much the worse—was not regular. Therefore, the Government of the day introduced a Bill, leaving the House to give an absolutely free vote as to whether or not some alteration to mitigate what had been discovered to be the rigours of the law was or was not desirable. We had a very adequate discussion and the House by a majority determined to give the Bill a Second Reading. The Bill was referred to a Committee upstairs and we sat for 10 days and made substantial progress. It is too much to say that we had broken the back of our task but we had got through the most controversial Clause and a long way through the next Clause. We managed to accommodate each other to a considerable extent. The Bill had a fair prospect of coming down from the Committee to the House, and in a few weeks time it would have passed and been sent to another place and, in the ordinary process, it would have become part of the law of the land. Owing to the crisis, real or imaginary, I do not know what view hon. Members take but personally I believe it to be real, that normal process cannot go on.
We are now in this position; are we to allow a state of things which have been declared by the courts to be illegal to continue? Hon. Members must remember that up to the time of the decision of the court those responsible for the administration of the law did not seek to stop this practice, either because they did not know that it was illegal or, to be quite candid, like myself, having looked into it on being asked by the theatrical managers to stop it, thought it was no part of my duty to act as I regarded the law as being antiquated and out of harmony with modern opinion. I felt that I must use a certain amount of discretion in administering the law and that there was no reason why I should act or any common informer. If the House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill it is quite impossible for that sort of procedure to go on. We now know that Sunday opening is illegal and if this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill those who are responsible for administering the law will have to see that it is properly administered.
We have been told that we are going to have this winter a grim time. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) asked whether our contribution to a grim winter is to allow people to go to the cinema on Sunday. What is his contribution? Is it to add to the grimness of the time he will deprive the people of a pleasure which they have hitherto enjoyed and not, allow them to try and forget their troubles by going to the cinema?

Mr. MORRIS: My contribution to the grimness of the time is this that the nation requires a strong sense of duty and discipline in order to meet it, not to waste time by going to the cinema on Sunday.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If this Bill were the only contribution of the Government to the grimness of the time it would indeed be ridiculous, but is it not better to allow people to have such relaxation as that to which they are entitled? May I remind the House that the Debate has been carried on As if the only matter to be dealt with were the cinemas? That, of course, is a total misapprehension. There are the concerts, which have been going on, and, indeed, been licensed in London since the year 1889. Take Wales. In Llandudno concerts to which people are admitted on
the payment of money have been going on for the last 36 years. In Cardiff 60 concerts were given in 1930; and in Colwyn Bay, Rhyl, Tenby, Haverfordwest, Wrexham, and Pembroke Dock concerts have been given for years past. Are all these to stop? There are many smaller villages in Wales where on Sundays people who cannot afford the time on other days give some oratorio which has necessitated a certain amount of expense which they met by charging for a ticket which admits people to listen to it. Is that to stop?

Sir B. PETO: The right hon. Gentleman is not bringing in a Bill to legalise concerts, but he is coupling up concerts with cinemas, which raise a very contentious question. Probably, if he had brought in a Bill to legalise concerts on Sundays there would have been no contention about it.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It has been said that we must alleviate the grimness of the coming winter by performances of this kind. Will the Government bring in a Bill to-morrow for the opening of public-houses from 10 to 10 every day, in place of the restrictions that we have now?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am glad to hear that if the Bill had been drafted on different lines the hon. Member would have supported it. It is open to him, of course, to move Amendments to this Bill in Committee. The consequence of not giving this Bill a Second Reading would be that concerts, which have gone on since 1889, could not go on, that throughout the country, where people have been admitted on payment of money, concerts would become illegal. An hon. Friend opposite asked questions about two other matters. He asked about Debates. I do not know how far an ordinary political meeting is a debate, but 'debates are prohibited under the Act of 1780. Do hon. Members really want. Sunday political meetings—and they may be debates—to be declared illegal and to be penalised I The result of not giving a Second Reading to the Bill may be to bring that about. Quite obviously this is merely intended to be a temporary Bill. No one suggests that this expedient should be resorted to in a permanent Bill. The safeguard in the Bill is that you cannot bring proceedings without.the consent either of the
Attorney-General or of the Solicitor-General. Although I and the Solicitor-General do not see eye to eye on this matter there is not one of us who would dream for one moment of authorising a proceeding in respect of a political meeting on a Sunday night, and I think that no sensible person in the country would authorise such a proceeding
Then I come to another matter—the Zoo. My hon. Friend reminded me that I have pleaded guilty to walking about the Zoo sometimes on Sundays. I did the Sunday before last. I might as well do that as walk about the streets, and there is a great deal to be said for seeing the animals. I cannot conceive that any person of ordinary tolerance or ordinary common sense would want to shut the Zoo either in London or at Whipsnade on the Sunday. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) gives his assent to that proposition. But if this Bill did not get a Second Reading the opening of the Zoo on Sunday would be illegal. What will prevent proceedings being taken against the opening of the Zoo is that under this Bill it will be necessary to get the consent of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, and whoever may be the one or the other during the year that this Bill is to run there is not one who would be so foolish as to give his consent to a proceeding to stop the opening of the Zoo on Sunday.
Then as to Sunday observance, it has always seemed to me that there is one very cogent argument that can be adduced about it, but there is only one. Apart from the argument that people feel that they are obeying the Divine Law, there is nothing to be said about it. It is not a matter of argument at all. The one test which has always impressed me is this—how much labour do you employ? If you do something which causes the employment of a great deal of labour, then the economic urge is such that large numbers of people may be driven to work on Sunday who do not give a real free consent to working on Sunday and those people may be deprived of the opportunity of having a day of rest in common with others. It is from that point of view that we want to judge all these cases—the questions of
Sunday trains and of Monday newspapers and, I suppose, Sunday papers as well. But I am bound to say—and here I join issue with the last speaker—that this seems to me to be the big dividing line between cinemas and theatres. The hon. Member will find that the number of employés who would be called upon to work in the theatre on Sunday is much greater, proportionately, than the number who would be called upon to work in the cinema. When you have given all the weight you can to the argument, however, some of the other arguments adduced seem to carry no weight at all. There is the argument of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) who spoke about Birmingham, but it has already been pointed out that the cinemas in Birmingham do not open on Sunday at all.

Sir C. OMAN: I never said that they did. I gave an example of the cinema psychology, from the report relating to the effect upon 80,000 Birmingham children. I did not say the cinemas there were open on Sunday.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then Birmingham seems to have even less relevance than I thought. The hon. Member said that they were morally, culturally and ethically to be deplored. He said that we were allowing children to be befouled. I am utterly unable to understand the frame of mind of anybody who is willing to allow a child to be befouled on Monday but not on Sunday.

Sir C. OMAN: The right hon. and' learned Gentleman has missed my point.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the cinemas are morally, culturally and ethically wrong, that applies equally to Sunday and to Monday. The hon. Member's argument, in so far as it has any bearing on the question at all, was an argument for closing cinemas altogether or, at any rate, for having a very much stricter censorship on films.

Sir C. OMAN: There you are.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: With regard to that I quite perceive that something might be said, but it seems to me to bear no relationship to a Bill to allow cinemas to be opened on Sundays. Another argument that struck
me as rather insincere is advanced by those people who feel very strongly on religious grounds but do not put their case on religious grounds, and try to buttress it up by all sorts of other arguments, such as that of money going to the Americans. Would the hon. Member for Ashford be prepared to have cinemas opened on Sundays if the films were English?

Mr. KEDWARD: I did not use that argument. It was used by the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Morris).

Mr. MORRIS: I used it with regard to a totally different position. I said that the National Government was formed to deal with a time of financial stringency, when you wanted all the money you could get in this country—not to have it flowing out to America. That was the connection in which I used that argument.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That does not seem a very direct answer to my question, and if the hon. Member were a witness in a court of law, I should feel inclined to ask him to try again.

Sir B. PETO: Although I used the argument as an additional argument why the Bill should not be brought in at this particular time, I would certainly not allow the licensing of cinemas on Sunday even if they used British films only, but using, as they do, American films, in the present state of the national finances, it is an additional argument against extending their use.

Mr. MORRIS: The Attorney-General represented my argument as being related to the religious point of view. I was not giving it from that point of view, and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of telling a witness to try again, counsel should certainly represent a witness's answers accurately.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As a matter of fact, the argument about that is, I think, ill-founded. In practice, what you do is to rent a film, as I understand, for a week, and whether you show the film for six days or seven days makes no difference. We were told by the hon. Member for Cardigan to admire the economic success of Scotsmen, who were held up as a pattern. Perhaps it is
because the Lords Day Observance Act of 1780 does not apply to Scotland. There was an application the other day for the opening of a cinema in Scotland which formed the subject of a case in the Scottish Courts, and they said they could not do it, as the Act does not apply to Scotland at all. Let us put ourselves in the same position as Scotland, say a good many. All that we seek to do is to make legal that which has been going on in fact for a considerable time.
It is said that the Bill is badly drafted. I am always ready to suppose that anybody else's drafts are very bad, and as this is not my draft, I look at it with the natural hostility with which any draftsmen looks at anybody else's draft, but I am bound to say that the hon. Member completely failed to make me understand what point he had about the drafting. It seems to me that the drafting is very plain. It says that if you have an area and in that area there have in fact been arrangements purporting to be licences within the last 12 months, then in that area there may be licences granted for cinemas, and so on.
The long and short of the matter is that practically every Member in this House, on a subject like this, has thought the matter out and made up his mind, and I do not. suppose that arguments advanced on one side or the other will sway very many votes. I ask the House to let us have our Second Reading, and, I may add, to let us have it now, because I really think that suddenly, here and now, to stop down all these places in which cinemas have in the past been open, and to stop concerts and the Zoo, and all public meetings on Sundays, at this juncture, would be regarded as a very great hardship, more especially in view of the fact that had it not been for the crisis which has come upon us, the Bill upon which we were working upstairs would have come down to this House, and we should have solved this question on more or less permanent lines. It is obvious to anybody looking at the Bill that it is a, mere temporary solution and that when the next House assembles Parliament will have to address itself to this question and to think out again the lines on which it ought to proceed. Neither side will be in any way prejudiced by letting this Bill go through in the meantime.

Question put, "That the stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 44.

Division No. 520.]
AYES.
[11.31 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. t.
Foot, Isaac,
Ramsbotham, H.


Aske, Sir Robert
Ford, Sir P. J.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Atholl, Duchess of
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Remer, John R.


Atkinson, C.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
George, Major Q. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gillett, George M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Balnlel, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Batey, Joseph
Gray, Mliner
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Salmon, Major I.


Benson, G.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Birkett, W. Ncrman
Groves, Thomas E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bracken, B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Savery, S. S.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Scurr, John


Briscoe, Richard George
Hanbury, C.
Skelton, A. N.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne.C.)


Brown, w. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Buchan, John
Hartington, Marquess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haycock, A. W.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Butler, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Stanley, Hon.O. (Westmorland)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Strauss, G. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm-,W.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Sir F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colman, N. C. D.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Train, J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cooper, A. Duff
Longden, F.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lymington, Viscount
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cranborne, Viscount
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Basset law)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marley, J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
White, H. G.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Morley, Ralph
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maggerldge, H. T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Day, Harry
Muirhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Dixey, A. C.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)



Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Ede, James Chuter
Penny, Sir George
Viscount Elmley.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Rosbotham, D. S, T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kelly, W. T.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Blindell, James
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sawyer, G. F.


Daggar, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald. Sir M. (Inverness)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Welr, L.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thompson, Luke


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mort, D. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col.D. (Rhondda)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Newman, Sir R. H. s. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, pontypool)
Noel-Buxton Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Harbord, A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)



Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Oman, Sir Charles Wiliam C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Peters. Dr. Sidney John
Mr. Hopkins Morris and Sir Basil


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Peto.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Bucklow, in the county of Chester, which was presented on the 8th day of September, 1931, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the compulsory acquisition of easements or other rights for overhead main transmission lines in and over certain lands situate in the county of Middlesex, which was presented on the 8th day of September, 1931, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Haydock and the township of Rixton-with-Glazebrook, in the rural district of Warrington, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 17th day of September, 1931, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, for the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Midhurst and District Electricity Special Order, 1927, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 21st day of September, 1931, be approved."—[Mr. Gillett.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1930.

Resolved,
That the Morecambe Corporation Act, 1918, Modification Order, 1931, which was presented on the 9th day of September, 1931, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Lancaster Order, 1916, Modification Order, 1931, which was presented on the 9th day of September, 1931 be approved."—[Mr. Gillett.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.